The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Dogs (Amendment) Act: Royal Assent

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform Members that Royal Assent to the Dogs (Amendment) Act has been signified. This Act became law on 29 January 2001.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Clauses 1 to 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 (Short title and commencement)

Dr Joe Hendron: I beg to move amendment 1: In page 39, line 5, at end add
"; but section 39 shall not be brought into operation by such an order before 1 April 2002".
I have always been opposed to fundholding because of the inequalities associated with it in respect of patient care. As I have already said to the Health Committee, I have been in general practice for many years. I retired not very long ago, but nevertheless I still have a slight link with a practice in west Belfast that in turn is linked with a multifund — a large conglomerate of over 200 doctors. The link is very slight; I am paid for what I do, but I do not receive any pecuniary gain as a result of the fundholding aspect of that practice.
Nominally, this debate is about GP fundholding, but it is really about the future of primary care services in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister, TonyBlair, told us not all that long ago that the National Health Service should be primary-care-led. That is what all senior health personnel were saying. What we wanted in these islands was a primary-care-led Health Service starting at the coalface from the bottom up, not from the top down. The former direct rule Health Minister, JohnMcFall, produced the document ‘Fit for the Future — A New Approach’. It was addressed not only to the people of Northern Ireland but to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It emphasised a primary care service but left it to the Executive and Members of the Assembly to progress.
My Committee was familiar with that document. It certainly had a vision for the future of primary care. It expressed a vision of health and personal social services as a single integrated service centred around primary care, directed by and accountable to the Assembly, where the needs of the people came first and the needs of organisations came second — and I want to emphasise that.
We must build on the present strengths of the Health Service. There are many things wrong with it, but there are some strengths, and we should build on them. The structures should be simplified, and the number of separate organisations should be reduced. Dr MauriceHayes’s acute hospitals review is due to report in the spring, and I hope that it suggests a rethink of management principles and how the health and personal social services can be restructured to make a deal with patients in a meaningful way. DrBrianPatterson, who is on the GP committee of the British Medical Association, states that
"the establishment and maintenance of ego-building empires must give way to patient-centred service. Primary care relies on a vibrant and effective hospital sector to facilitate the delivery of safe and quality care for patients. This is another reason why any hiatus in the delivery of primary care would be counter-productive. The future of primary care services is much more complex than simply abolishing GP fundholding and pilot commissioning schemes. To abolish fundholding and pilot schemes before new arrangements are in place is wrong and counter-productive."
Mr JohnSimpson, former chairperson of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, was reported in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ of 23 January as saying that to transfer responsibilities for delegated decision making back to health boards would be equivalent to putting the clock back.
I have always been opposed to fundholding because of the inequities it caused. Patients of fundholding doctors did better than those of non-fundholding doctors in accessing secondary care. If fundholding were to cease on 31March without specific and appropriate primary care arrangements being in place, there would be a massive hiatus. Furthermore, the considerable expertise gained by commissioning pilot schemes would be lost.
There have been many such schemes in Northern Ireland, and they have all been successful. The Minister would accept that point. Let me give one example. The Lisburn primary care commissioning group was able to develop an integrated care pathway across primary and secondary care for terminally ill patients. It was also able to develop a model of community consultation that brings health and social care professionals and statutory and voluntary agencies together with service users to identify local needs and the action required to address them. It also improved the quality and standard of care that patients received through an agreed programme of clinical governance at practice level, where information and good practice is shared between GPs in respect of, for example, patients with diabetes. I emphasise this, because this involves many people — doctors, nurses and various people at community level. Primary and secondary care professionals have developed jointly prescribing guidelines for ulcer-healing drugs, antibiotics and analgesics and hormone replacement therapy.
The Armagh primary care commissioning pilot scheme developed a significant range of patient-centred services through a partnership of professionals, users, the local community and other statutory and voluntary sector organisations. It delivered the first community-based cardiac rehabilitation programme in Northern Ireland. It is important for Members to appreciate that point. Since that programme was launched in April 2000, more than 70 people have benefited from that vital service, compared with only six in the previous year. Its nurse-led Heart Wise clinics are in all local GP practices and provide a high quality of evidence-based secondary prevention service for cardiac patients. The pilot scheme has also provided a primary-care-based counselling service for people who are depressed or have suffered a bereavement and a fall prevention programme for the elderly.
I could also go on about pilot schemes commissioned in mid-Ulster, Ballyclare, north Down, Antrim, Ballymena and north, south, east and west Belfast, all of which have been substantial achievements. I saw those schemes as the nuclei of a future primary-care-led health service. It is important, therefore, to build on the benefits. What are they? A higher quality of patient care; greater access with improved local service; a better response from hospitals; a reduction in waiting times and lists; greater choice for patients; highly motivated primary care staff; patient involvement; computerised, easily accessible clinical information systems; and the development of nurse practitioners. I am sure that the Minister would not want to be responsible for withdrawing the following: cardiac rehabilitation services based in leisure centres in Armagh; enhanced delivery of diabetes care in Newcastle, Whiteabbey and Magherafelt; screening of people with learning difficulties in Antrim, Ballymena and north and west Belfast; and community development initiatives in the Hillhall estate in Lisburn and in south Down. Nor, I am sure, would she want to be responsible for the closure of primary-care-led hospital beds in Whiteabbey and Castlewellan, which will further increase pressure on our hospitals.
It is vital that the achievements of the present arrangements be preserved and carried into a new framework. A top-down approach will not work. Effective and efficient management of new primary care structures cannot be enhanced by increasing the power and influence of health boards.
The Assembly is unlikely to have another chance to create major initiatives in primary care in the foreseeable future. That is why this debate is so important. Giving more power to health boards makes any future review of such a structure much more difficult. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the Executive will carry out a major review of public administration. I accept and support that, but the Health Service cannot wait for it. A review of the Health Service, which examines looking at boards and trusts, is needed within the next year and a half.
The draft Programme for Government states that we must
"refine existing policies and programmes and create new ones, tailored to the specific needs of Northern Ireland."
It says that
"our joint aim must be to improve our policies and programmes and create the best legislative framework for the future."
That is what this debate is about.
"A vision of a modern, successful society must include major improvements in the health of our people."
Former President Bill Clinton said recently that to stand still is to go back. What the Minister is proposing for primary care is, de facto, a return to the days before fundholding, with the inevitable loss of expertise gained by staff involved in pilot commissioning schemes and fundholders in general. In the draft Programme for Government, one of the actions to be taken is to
"finalise a strategy which will replace the GP Fundholding Scheme with fairer, less bureaucratic arrangements in primary care designed to strengthen structures for delivering high quality primary care services in local communities".
Giving more power to health boards will not strengthen those structures. After all, they are the ones who are looking after GPs in Northern Ireland who are not fundholders. It is ludicrous, therefore, to put everyone in the charge of the boards. In the past it has been a failure.
Dr Brian Patterson said that going back eight years to health board management would undo much of what has been achieved. What we have always asked for is a seamless transition. It is not just fundholding; the commissioning pilots are also being told to down tools. The Royal College of Nursing has said that it welcomes the primary health care document, especially the abolition of GP fundholding in Northern Ireland. However, if GP fundholding is abolished in April, with no infrastructure in the interim, many problems will emerge for nurses and nursing.
Royal colleges have been inundated by primary care people, both doctors and nurses, expressing their deep concerns about job losses. General practitioners have been funding nurse-prescribing roles from fundholding savings. They have already informed nurses that their employment will be terminated in the future due to a lack of funding. We are deeply concerned about this latest development and would like to express our support for the amendment proposed by the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee on Wednesday 24 January 2001.
The mere mention of the words "royal colleges" results in some Members becoming annoyed. While surgeons and physicians may have played some role in the downgrading of Dungannon, Magherafelt and Downe Hospitals, one cannot have a blanket condemnation of all the royal colleges. Mr Speaker, you will appreciate the point. We are talking about the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Nursing. Dr Peter Colvin, Chair of the Northern Ireland faculty of the Royal College of General Practitioners, as said:
"I think the hiatus in the organisational structures is very detrimental to primary care. It is demoralising for health care staff and frustrating for those trying to deliver a quality service to their patients."
He added that the resource implications for the overhaul of primary care structures must be addressed.
The Minister’s document contains a list of aspirations for the development of primary care services. There is no commitment to resources and no timetable to put these aspirations in place. Dr Colvin further declared that he was concerned that the quality of patient care would be affected gravely by the hiatus.
We must give the people of Northern Ireland the best primary care service possible. Our people deserve that. It is what this debate is about. We are not likely to have another chance for some time. The future of primary care will affect every family in Northern Ireland. It will affect every man, woman and child. It will affect the elderly, children, the mentally ill, the disabled and the socially deprived. Therefore, we must get it right. We all know about the poor health of people in this part of the world. Life expectancy in Northern Ireland is among the worst in Europe. We have the third-highest death rate in Europe from coronary artery disease. Female lung cancer rates are the highest in Europe, as are those for breast cancer and teenage pregnancy. Young male death rates from accidents and suicide are the highest in the EU.
With regard to health inequalities, sickness and death hit the poorest worst and first. The death rate for the unskilled is three times greater, and the poorest are twice as likely to die prematurely. The Health Service in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, is in a poor state, with huge hospital waiting lists and delays in the treatment of cancer and cardiac surgery. These factors all add to the great confusion. Our patients deserve better.
Given the will, there is more than enough talent in primary care in Northern Ireland to enable us to develop a primary care service that is fit for the twenty-first century. Before Members vote, I ask them all to consider the positive proposals in John McFall’s document ‘Fit for the Future — A New Approach’. Members should consider this and then look at the main section of the document, titled ‘Building the Way Forward In Primary Care’, and ask themselves whether, if fundholding and, above all, the GP commissioning groups, finish on 31 March, structures will be in place not only for the smooth development of primary care but also for the provision of the best possible service for the people.

Mr Alan McFarland: GP fundholding is wrong in principle, and it must be changed. It is an inequitable system. Members will be aware that some 90% of medical care is carried out at primary care level. Sixty per cent of GPs — 600 — in Northern Ireland are fundholders. They cover 65% of the population. Two thirds of the Northern Ireland population come under GP fundholding. It is fair to say that fundholding has been, by and large, a success. There have been some failures. Some doctors have not handled it well. However, those doctors who are in fundholding believe that it has been a success. Their patients are happy that they get a better service. This is where the problem arises, because that situation is inequitable for patients who are not in fundholding practices and whose commissioning is done by the boards. They do not get as good a deal. That is unfair, and that is why there has to be change.
Over the past few years, a substantial expertise has been built up in fundholding. Professionals deal with the money and commissioning matters. There is a great danger that, if fundholding is ended precipitously on 31 March, many people who are not NHS staff but who are contracted to GPs will be lost. They will find jobs elsewhere. The future plan for primary care, as you are aware, is to bring GP commissioning into being at a slightly higher level, not with individual doctors but with groups of doctors. Those organisations will need the expertise which currently exists in fundholding, but by the time we get round to it — in a year, perhaps — and we are then looking for such people, they will have obtained work elsewhere.
What is the hurry about all this? We are being asked to end fundholding on 31 March and to give commissioning back to the least successful commissioners in the current system — the boards.
Members will be aware that a primary care review is taking place. Dr Maurice Hayes is carrying out an acute hospitals review. The object of the exercise is to produce a new system, a seamless robe of medical care that is the best we can design for our patients. The primary care review does not report until 2 March. It seems that, regardless of its findings, we will chop fundholding by 31 March. We have had no opportunity to look at what the proposals might be, nor to devise an equitable and suitable system that we all like. Regardless of our choice, fundholding is to be chopped. That is not right.
The Committee has spoken to the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Nursing. Those organisations are happy that GP fundholding should go but are very unhappy at the speed with which it is taking place. This morning I received a letter from my north Down primary care organisation that said, "Please do not do this until you have something to put in its place." My point is that I do not understand why this is being rushed, why a decision to chop this is being taken before there is something better — which we hope will come out of the reviews — to put in its place. It makes no sense. We will lose the expertise, and how will we get it back? What is the hurry? We need time to put the new system in place.
The professionals are against stopping GP fundholding on 31 March. Patients will lose out until there is a better system. I urge Members to think carefully, because we are in serious danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. We need time to allow these studies to take place, and to allow the Department to bring forward something sensible with which Members and professionals are happy. I urge Members to support the amendment and buy us that time.

Mr Paul Berry: I support the amendment. Many discussions have taken place in the past few weeks in relation to the repeal of GP fundholding. It was expressed time and time again — Mr McFarland and Dr Hendron have covered it very well — that many professionals argued before the Committee that they had no problem with the ending of GP fundholding. The problem they found was that there was nothing to replace it, and they asked why we should rush through the whole process. We should give it a year and then go for the ending of GP fundholding. If this measure goes through as it is, our Health Service will become nothing more than a joke.
Like many others, I find it hard to understand how anyone could come up with such a measure without first asking a few simple, common-sense questions. What have others done about this issue? What will replace the present system? What will be the immediate effect of abolishing that system? Most importantly, what vital services will close as a result of ending GP fundholding? If the Minister had been briefed properly she would have asked herself these questions. Are there any excellent things we ought to keep? Should this matter be phased in along a set timetable? These and other simple questions were never asked, and perhaps never answered.
The English model says that whatever is good will be retained. As Mr McFarland said, we are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Many would say that we are not even keeping the bath. GP fundholding was not in itself a disaster, which is why it is being retained in England. Rather, the fault lay in the fact that not every GP was a fundholder. That is why so many have come to oppose it: it brought division to a once-unified service.
The Assembly is faced with a choice of whether to act like vandals or like responsible politicians. The vandal will abolish without replacement; the responsible politician will replace and abolish as a unitary act. Since we have nothing to replace GP fundholding, we cannot abolish it. Discarding the system is the work of a philistine with no comprehension of the effect and impact on patients, services and GP morale. If a person were to fix a vehicle in the way that the Minister proposes to fix the Health Service, it would be akin to abolishing the petrol engine and going back to steam, while waiting for an inventor to come up with a replacement.
Many people and professionals in the community do not want to see the continuation of GP fundholding, but they want something credible in its place before action is taken. I support the amendment, and I trust that Members will stand behind the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee in support of it.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat. I oppose the amendment. I am a member of the Health Committee, and we had a number of frank discussions in the Committee. In fact, some Members have said more today than they said at the Committee meetings. Perhaps it has something to do with having speech-writers.
My colleague on the Committee, John Kelly, and I felt that we could not support the amendment. Our views were placed firmly on the record. Sinn Féin is on record as saying that GP fundholding has been wrong from its inception. Every party in the Assembly has said, at one time or another, that GP fundholding is wrong and that it welcomes the ending of that system.
The Chairperson of the Committee, Dr Hendron, said that pilot schemes will be lost. It is my understanding that pilot schemes will not be lost. Extending GP fundholding for another year would not give us time to put in place a proper replacement. The expertise and staffing mentioned will not be lost; they will just be reintegrated into another part of the service. Keeping GP fundholding would send out the wrong message, because for years it has created uncertainty, not only among staff but in the service as a whole. This amendment would just add to that.
GP fundholding is wrong. It created inequalities and a two-tier system in the Health Service, and it must go. Mr McFarland said that GP fundholding is wrong but that it has been a success. I do not know where he got that from. If something is wrong, how can it be a success? He also mentioned expertise. As I have said, that expertise will not be lost.
The professionals are against change. They do not want to lose control of GP fundholding. We need to point out that the overspending within fundholding has led to large deficits that have had to be met by the boards. Those deficits are taking money away from front-line care. The Minister told the Committee last week that, because of this overspending, some 45 GP fundholders will be legally required to leave the scheme this year. That adds to the uncertainty.
GP fundholding is unfair. It has created a two-tier system. Continuing it for another year will tie up much-needed resources and will only add to the delay in delivery of primary care. The Committee Chairperson was also told that GP fundholding will not end right away; there will be a phased rundown over six months, while at the same time implementing primary care. Members need to take that on board. If we delay it for another year, and there is then another phased rundown, where will we be going? We will be two years down the road.
The services provided by GP fundholders will not end. The delivery of the service will continue. The only difference will be in who commissions that service. This fightback by fundholders be stopped. The sectarian, anti-Sinn Féin politics of the DUP must not be allowed to dictate this amendment. I find it worrying that some members of the SDLP are prepared to support maintaining fundholding, even though —

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Member accept that this is a matter of judgement on health issues? It is totally false to introduce sectarianism. This is a matter of looking after patients in all Northern Ireland.

Ms Sue Ramsey: I accept what the Member says. What I am clearly saying is that anti-Sinn Féin sectarian attitudes should not be allowed to dictate this amendment.
Some members of the SDLP are prepared to support maintaining fundholding, even though the Chairperson of the Health Committee, Joe Hendron, has said time and time again that fundholding is wrong. Fundholding created inequality in the Health Service. For the first time, this Bill gives us the opportunity to tackle the inequalities in the Health Service and the inequalities created by GP fundholding.
I cannot support the amendment.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I support the amendment. I ask the same question that Alan McFarland asked: what is the rush? We must get it right this time. Many important points have been raised this morning, particularly by the Chairperson of the Health Committee, Dr Joe Hendron, whom I consider to be more expert on the subject than many Members.
Fundholding was interesting and, perhaps, useful in certain circumstances. However, a decision has been made to leave fundholding behind, and we in the Alliance Party and many other parties in the Assembly support that. The extra time outlined in the amendment will give all concerned the opportunity to put in place something that will benefit both the patient and the GP. Using the experience of fundholding and other practices during recent times can only help us all to provide a more equitable way forward for the Health Service.
The Alliance Party supports the amendment.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I support the amendment, as a member of a party that has been totally opposed to GP fundholding and recognises that it creates a two-tier system. We believe that it should be taken out of commission. Our big difficulty is that nobody has convinced us that this money will not go back to the boards when the time for doing away with GP fundholding arrives at the end of March.
We all talk about how we will spend this money on primary care. In my view, if the money goes back to the boards it will not be spent on primary care. It will be spent where it is always spent — in acute hospitals, particularly the Royal Victoria Hospital. That is where the inequality is. We allow the Health Service to take money from primary care and put it into acute services. We continually must ensure that whatever we have in place is primary care, and that it recognises the nurses and the health visitors in the areas where we live and work. That is what we need to do. To date, nobody has convinced me that primary care will be a winner when GP fundholding is removed. We want fundholders to remain for another year, until such care is in place.
We could argue about where the money will be spent, but when GP fundholding goes, the boards will be left in control of their money. In recent years, I have watched my area’s board spend that money as it pleased. It spent it on the deficits for which it, rather than the GP fundholders, was responsible. It has done away with the people we need, such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists, who have been taken out of my area and not replaced. Despite this, there are still elderly people in my community, some aged 84, who have to wait at least two years before they can even get a consultation.
Let us make sure that we get this right. Let us hold on to the GP fundholding for one more year until we have an alternative primary care service in place. Let us not leave it to the boards, because they will put the money into acute hospitals and not into primary care.

Prof Monica McWilliams: This is a time of uncertainty, but it is also one of major change. The ongoing reviews of acute hospitals, acute care and primary care and investing for health signal a period of hope. That should be seen as a period of opportunity and not as a period of threat.
The extent of people’s concern that we may move backwards rather than forwards is disappointing. In my opinion, the reverse is taking place, and the announcement that GP fundholding is to end marks an opportunity for us to move on to something different.
I am very concerned, and I have a number of questions for the Minister about the closure of fundholding and the role of the boards. It is also important for us to remember the members of other multidisciplinary teams in primary care. "The Invisible Army" was the title of a conference held last week by community nurses, district nurses and health visitors, who believe that their voices have not been heard in this debate. We must remember that it is not just GPs who should have a major vote in deciding the way forward.
The removal of fundholding has been presented in a very negative light, even though many GPs and other health care and social care professionals welcome such a move in the light of the inequities and the perverse incentives it created. We should be made accountable for deficits. In the Eastern Health and Social Services Board alone, fundholding has created a deficit of £4·1 million. According to empirical evidence, five fundholding practices in the North Belfast and West Belfast constituencies had £2·7 million savings, of which £1·47 million went back into the practices for structural improvement. Only £117,000 was spent on services to the community. This is taking place not just in South Belfast but also in extremely deprived communities, of which there are also many in South Belfast.
We who hold others accountable for how they spend their money should be making decisions on such inequity and deficits. Is that what we want to continue over the next year?
Fundholders have also expressed concern to Members of the Assembly and Health Committee members that innovative practices will not be protected or continued. I ask the Minister to address that point.
According to the departmental officials who addressed the Committee, it seems that they will build on good practice and incorporate its various elements rather than just end them. I pay tribute to the excellent practice that has emerged from the commissioning pilot schemes, including the pilot scheme on the care of the elderly which took place outside my constituency in the Down Lisburn Trust area. And if we can build on the innovative practices now in place and mainstream them, we will relieve some of the alarm, anxiety and fear of those working on that pilot scheme.
Savings on prescriptions have been made, and that is probably the area flagged up most by GP fundholders. However, it is unfair to suggest that non-fundholders have not saved on prescriptions also in the past years. On some future occasion we may debate the distribution of generic rather than specialist types of drugs to some people. Nonetheless, whether or not patients’ needs are best served by the way in which doctors have had to address themselves to the prescription charge debate, it remains laudable that both fundholders and non-fundholders have made substantial savings on prescriptions. The main worry for GP fundholders is that any savings they have made to date may be dispersed after 31 March. That will obviously be an anxiety for people who have gone out of their way to make savings. If these economies are taken from doctors and given to the boards, the doctors may feel that all their hard work has been to no avail. On the contrary, I believe that where savings were made, they were benefited from. Perhaps the Minister could address that issue in her response.
There is also the matter of redeployment. What is to happen to the staff who were part of the pilot schemes and those who work in fundholders’ practices? We are not heartless individuals. The boards have been asked to address that task. The debate must continue about whether or not those staff can be redeployed elsewhere and whether some of the best practices can be mainstreamed. Otherwise, we will wake up on 1 April and suddenly discover that everything has changed and all the best has been thrown out.
Even if we had gone down the road of ‘Fit for the Future’, as opposed to the road of the current consultation document, we would still be going through a period of transition. Transition is something that we know about. As we are often told, we are in a period of transition with devolution. Clearly, there is going to be a massive public administration review, and we are heading towards that in this period of transition. In the end, we will be focused and fixed on agreed best services for primary and community care, and all Assembly Members will have been part of that decision-making process. We do not want to move away from providing services to the community. Those models are the options we must consider.
I would also like to mention data systems. GP fundholders tell us that they have the best data systems and that those who are not in fundholding practices have poor systems. This is not an issue of GP fundholders versus non-fundholders; it is an issue for the whole country. We should have a regional strategy on accurate data systems. We need a database across the country that records waiting lists and tells us accurately when patients went into hospitals, how long they were there and when they came out. To date, it has been possible for patients to fall through the system, and they have neither been tracked nor traced. We should now attempt to redress this problem as part of our strategy on the way forward rather than leave efficient data equipment a premium available only to GPs who benefited from the fundholding system.
We need to focus on clinical practice. The best clinical practice should not be lost. Concerns have been voiced that the innovations implemented there did not show the best way forward. Dr Hendron said in his introduction that he is concerned about expertise. I have experience of restructuring and major change in universities. We built on the best expertise and made progress. The last thing anyone wants to do is marginalise good expertise; rather we must continue to centralise it and thus dispel fears.
That is why we need to move forward quickly from a system based on those GPs who showed an interest in change and a pilot system toward mainstream organisation in primary care with a view to raising standards everywhere. It is time to end that uncertainty and move forward.
I am concerned about this issue in relation to the boards. Clearly, there is great unease about the role of the boards and a worry that if local health and social care groups are established as subcommittees of boards it will be more difficult to review and change their role following a review of public administration. Members have already said that it will be difficult to take that power away. I am also concerned that not everyone takes an interest in this issue and that Members attack boards unnecessarily. Different parts of the administration have different roles to play.
The community service is an excellent public service. The Minister and I saw it last week when the South and East Belfast Trust was handing out awards for home-care packages, which are delivered by a multidisciplinary team working together in the interests of individual patients to ensure that the patients remain at home, or are discharged earlier from hospital, or never have to go to hospital in the first place.
Members have voiced fears that boards want to give themselves even more power. That may happen in the transitional stage, but my understanding is that the opposite will happen once a decision has been made on the best strategic model, which is currently out for consultation.
There should be no special pleading for boards, but they are a key building block in the current system. In the transition period they may be the glue that holds the different elements together. When the jigsaw pieces are eventually put together the glue will no longer be needed. My understanding is that the boards do not want to be in that position any longer than is necessary.
A central thrust of the proposed new arrangements is not about adding to bureaucracy. However, it is when Members think that an additional tier is being added that we get the longest speeches. The arrangements are about creating opportunities for integration and partnership with the health and personal social services. In Northern Ireland we have been commended for our integrated family that encompasses the social services on the one hand and the Health Service on the other. We aim to drive forward the different components of that service.
Primary care professionals and trusts have important roles to play in working with boards to develop the new plans. I am very heartened by the action, health, well-being and implementation plans in ‘Investing for Health’, and the contents of that document need to be incorporated.
Let me also give voice to those least heard — community nurses, district nurses, school nurses and health visitors. More than 150 of these health care workers have written to me. Their conference was held on Friday 26 January 2001, and I have tried to circulate a letter I have received to as many Members as possible. The letter states:
"GP fundholding has curtailed innovative practice and staff development in the community. One example is that many GPs have been very reluctant to support the development and extension of practice of community nurses and health visitors, even though such developments are beneficial both to patients and to staff.
I am appalled by the injustice of this two-tier system which allows inequity of service provision within the communities.
Limitations have been placed (both financial and professional) on community nurses and health visitors. The latter especially have lost a large part of their public health role that they are trained and skilled to deliver.
If GP fundholding is extended, health visitors will be unable to effectively deliver the public health agenda which has been proposed in the ‘Investing for Health’ consultation document. Because of the payment system to GPs" —
many Members may not realise this —
"health visitors are commissioned by them to meet their targets in relation to immunisation programmes and development surveillance of pre-school children. Community nurses and health visitors are trained to work using a holistic approach to patient/client care. GP fundholding has served to disempower nurses by focusing on a medical model of intervention and a task orientated model of practice. This scenario exists largely because GPs are trained to treat disease rather than to prevent it."
Those are pretty harsh words. However, community nurses and health visitors are concerned that, if this remains in place for another year, they will continue to be treated as people who simply carry out immunisation and surveillance programmes because of the payments given for that work. Rather, they should be viewed in a holistic way, given that they have been trained to carry out the public health role of preventative care.
Community nurses and health visitors say that they feel —

Mr Speaker: Order. While there is no guillotine on such stages of legislation, or on the length of time a Member may speak, the Member has now been speaking for substantially longer than any of the other Members — including DrHendron, who moved the amendment. In fairness, I ask all Members to try to make their points as concisely as they can. That would allow everyone to join in the debate and prevent our postponing to the evening the rest of the day’s business.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I am aware that there is no guillotine, and with that in mind I am trying to present as much information as I can so that an informed decision can be made. However, I will take on board your views and draw my remarks to a close.
Having asked the Minister to address a number of anxieties and fears, we should make a decision on how we are going to vote on this serious issue. In the end, the focus on improving services for those in the community is what should drive us forward. This decision will lead us to that decision. The sooner we consult and decide on the models, rather than endure uncertainty for another year, the better for all of us.
It is time to promote equality of access and service across all our communities. We know the inequities and the deficits that exist when we do not do that. It is time to build on partnership and get clear and simple lines of accountability.

Rev Robert Coulter: I support the amendment. The Health Service has been subjected to a multitude of changes over the past number of years. The past 10 to 15years has been an era of almost constant change that has proved most unsettling for all involved — administrators, employees and the patients themselves. Insecurity and uncertainty have been the main characteristics of the Health Service for too long. The many reviews and recommendations have been an enormous waste of time, finance and resources, especially when so many of those recommendations have not been implemented. People today expect the Health Service to be professional in every respect, and that includes those who make decisions.
Society wants a service that delivers the appropriate care at the right time, in the right place and by the right people. As the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has said, there must be a seamless service for a patient from his first contact with his GP through to primary care and on to whatever treatment is required afterwards. Many points have been made, which I will not repeat. Questions, however, must be asked. One question that has been raised concerns the level of deficit in certain GP fundholding practices. The amount quoted was approximately £5million. Why is this being raised as a problem when groups such as the Royal Group of Hospitals Trust are over £13 million in debt? The use of this kind of argument indicates a lack of consistency.
Prof McWilliams said that best practice should not be lost. Is there any guarantee that it will not be lost, particularly as specialists have been brought in and expertise has been gathered in the fundholding system? Is there any guarantee that, if fundholding is cut off and there is staff disruption — and we have been told that staff will be reintegrated — these people will be prepared to change again and come back to the co-operatives or whatever system replaces fundholding?
We agree that fundholding must go. It is inequitable. The question before the House is when will it go. Why proceed now when a consultation process is taking place? As has already been asked, what is the hurry? It is regrettable that the Ms Ramsey said that opposition to fundholding is a Sinn Féin prerogative. It is not — we are all against fundholding. Why introduce sectarianism to the debate when we should be concerned with getting the best for all patients in our country?
As has been mentioned, the cutting of fundholding now would be a regrettable step. We are going backwards. John Simpson is right when he says that
"to give back the whole of the fundholding control to the boards is a backward step".
We are supposed to be making progress, but we are going back 10 years. The Assembly is here to progress every aspect of life in this community, but in one step our attitude is regressing at least 10 years. If the Health Service is to be restructured, we must question the need for a Department, four boards, four health councils, five agencies, 19 trusts and five health co-operatives. These are the questions we should be considering. It would be unprofessional to cut off fundholding now without waiting for the results of the consultation. I ask Members to stop and think about what we are doing, and I ask them to give the consultation an opportunity to succeed.

Ms Carmel Hanna: This debate would not have taken place if it were not for the attitude of the Minister and her Department. I want to place it on record that the SDLP is opposed to the principle of fundholding. I want that on record in order to avoid anyone making political capital of it. The issue is too important for that.
Fundholding introduced differences in the treatment of patients. It discriminated between patient categories. The SDLP believes in a National Health Service in which services are free at the point of delivery. The Minister and her Department refused to extend the consultation period to develop more radical options for primary care. That short-sighted approach will waste money in the long term. The Minister and her Department want to go backwards to the failed system that was recognised as such in documents such as ‘Fit for the Future’ and ‘Fit for the Future — A New Approach’. The same Department wrote those documents. ‘Fit for the Future — A New Approach’ was presented to Assembly Members almost two years ago by the then Minister for Health and Social Services, John McFall. We are now being presented with a far more conservative option than that of two years ago.
I want to see real partnerships on the ground, involving GPs, nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists and podiatrists commissioning services for their patients. It is the professionals and the practitioners working on the ground who best know the needs of their patients. I have talked to many practitioners. I can assure Members who are worried that the nurses have not been consulted that I have talked to many nurses. They have deep concerns that the Department and the Minister are going backwards.
We need to see the results of the review of acute hospital services in place if we are ever to make the fundamental changes required. We talk about an integrated, interdependent health care system. How can we create that without all the pieces of the jigsaw? I want to see fundholding ended, but I want real primary-care partnership at the heart of whatever replaces it. We need to build on the innovative practices and pilot schemes that have evolved in the past few years.
The main urgency for ending fundholding now appears to be a monetary one — an overspend of approximately £5 million by fundholding practices. Of course, much primary care has been under-resourced, and it is essential that money be spent where it is needed. I need to know the real cost of going back to where we were before fundholding. Surely it would be more cost-effective to make some radical decisions at this stage, rather than taking retrograde steps that will move us further away from the ideal of an integrated and interdependent health care system. Ironically, we will now need additional resources for primary care to go backwards. I urge the Minister to listen and to take a more radical approach to the future of our health care.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I oppose the amendment because it is divisive and unnecessary. It is predicated on the view developing here that those of us who oppose the amendment are uncaring about primary care, the health of our constituents or ensuring that we make provisions for a health service that is delivered at the point of need.
I have listened to everyone arguing for the ending of fundholding. No Members have said that they are for the continuation of fundholding. All that they say is "We want fundholding ended, but why the hurry?" Why then the hurry on this amendment? Why bring to the Floor of the Chamber an amendment that is divisive in our attempts to create a proper, caring Health Service, particularly in the area of primary care? It puts people such as Sue Ramsey and myself in a position where, by opposing the amendment — and opposing it in Committee for four and a half hours or more — we are somehow seen as backward-looking people who are not in favour of a Health Service that is socialist in its content and direction. That is why this amendment is unnecessary and divisive.
There is a suggestion that fundholding will end completely on 1 April. In fact, the statement from the Minister says that there will be a six-month, or perhaps longer, winding down of fundholding. To suggest that ending fundholding in this way is somehow detrimental —

Mr David Ervine: If the Member would give us some understanding of what it would wind down to, perhaps those who support the amendment might have a totally different attitude.

Mr John Kelly: I can only speak from my understanding as to what it would wind down to. It is winding down to the wind-up of a primary health care. That is why I am opposing the amendment. If I thought that the winding down of fundholding was not going to be in line with arrangements ensuring that we were making the beginnings of a primary care service that is radical and will deliver care to those who need it, I would not be opposing the amendment.
I oppose the amendment because it is divisive and unnecessary. I received a letter from members of the mid-Ulster commissioning pilot scheme this morning. It went through all the various things that we have already discussed. While they are not in favour of ending fundholding in what they call a transitional period, they are saying that the scenario whereby GP fundholding is extended for another year would be worse. Even they are aware of the fact that fundholding has not delivered an equitable health service. It has delivered a two-tier system of health.

Mr Alan McFarland: The Member will recall that we had extensive discussions about how we might find some way through this. It is fair to say that the Committee did not wish to extend it for a year, but the Committee had no option because there would be no system in place if it went through. We are interested in having something to replace the present system. If the Minister could produce something to replace it, and find a way of altering the timescale, I am quite sure that we would all be happy enough with that. The problem is about the replacement.

Mr John Kelly: Let us hear what the Minister has to say about that. I am confident that this Minister will attempt to deliver — and will deliver — a primary health service that will be worthy of her own political and social philosophies. I will look forward to that.
I agree that there are difficulties in the interim and in the transition. However, those difficulties are exacerbated by the amendment. They could have been better overcome had we adopted a more consultative approach. I do not take on board that the winding down of fundholding will hinder the beginnings of the delivery of a proper primary care service.
On the question of costs, there is no doubt about it. We talked to the boards in relation to the present position. Who will pay for the deficit of the fundholders, except the boards? Who will pay for the deficit of fundholders, except the Department? If fundholders get an extension for a year, they will surely say at the end of that year that they will not be paying the deficit — whatever it might be. It will then be open season as regards what happens within fundholding.
I oppose the amendment because it is divisive and unnecessary. I would not oppose it if I thought for one minute that we were not all saying the same thing. We are singing from the same hymn sheet — for a change. We all want a proper primary care service and a proper health service for the people we serve. The only dispute is about how and when it should be delivered. This hiatus that we talk about might not be as big a chasm as some are making it out to be.
I listened to Dr Hendron’s list of doom as to what might happen. I would not oppose him if I thought that the things he suggested would come to pass. I have just been handed ‘Building the Way Forward in Primary Care’, in which the Minister states:
"I am pleased to present this consultation paper. It sets out proposals for new arrangements in primary care to be put in place following the end of the GP fundholding scheme. It also puts forward a future policy agenda for the delivery of primary care services."
The Minister and the Department have given a commitment. I hope that the Assembly will drive that commitment forward, not in a divisive way, but in a united way, so that we, as MsdeBrún said, might deliver the best possible health service to our constituents and the people we serve, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mrs Iris Robinson: It is obvious that the Minister’s stance has more to do with politics than the good practice of providing the best care to the public. Sixty-five per cent of GPs chose the fundholding alternative, and 35% opted to stay with the boards. The so-called inequality of the present system is down to a matter of choice, not direct or indirect discrimination against those GPs who decided of their own volition not to become GP fundholders. That is a matter of fact. The "them and us" scenario that has been painted is due to choice alone.
The relevant facts were well put by the Chairperson of the Health Committee, DrHendron, Mr McFarland, Mr Berry and Billy Hutchinson. We wish to see an end to GP fundholding. However, during the Health Committee’s deliberations, it accepted that there would be a void if fundholding ceased by 1 April 2001. The Health Committee’s vote on this issue last Wednesday reflected these concerns — it was six to two in support of this amendment.
We need to take account of the expected reviews of primary care and the future of acute hospitals. Sensible and informed decisions can be taken with all of that information to hand. The bogeyman of the £5 million deficit run up by several GP fundholders was held up as a good reason to end the practice. That seems strange to me, bearing in mind that it costs an additional £90 million a year to run the 11 Government Departments, whereas only six were required before the Assembly was established — there was no concern about that. An extra £20 million is required to service the North/South bodies — again, no concern.
We will get only one chance to make the Health Service work for all of Northern Ireland’s people. I urge caution and ask the SDLP to remove its three-line whip so that it can join the Health Committee’s Chairperson and the majority of its members in support of the amendment.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s decision to end GP fundholding. I welcomed that decision before I listened to this morning’s debate. After listening to everyone else say that fundholding is wrong, I want to put that point across strongly.
Before the establishment of the Assembly and the Executive, all the political parties were clearly calling for the end of GP fundholding. I cannot understand the argument behind this morning’s debate. In my opinion, the amendment is madness. GP fundholding has created an unequal, two-tier health system at primary care level. Delaying the end of GP fundholding will result in the waste of millions of pounds in propping up a system instead of developing new arrangements.
Given that primary care is so important, and given that the delivery of primary care services has major ramifications for every other aspect of the Health Service, it is critical that the Assembly get this issue right. The inequalities created by the GP fundholding system cannot be perpetuated because we do not have the bottle to change it. GPs lobbied me before the Executive was set up and during the suspension period because of uncertainty in the Health Service. That fact illustrates how demoralising this issue was.
We need to use resources wisely to put a credible system in place that treats everybody equally. Health should not be used as a political football. The Assembly should use this opportunity to create a fair and equitable system. I oppose the amendment. Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim i gcoinne an leasaithe seo go tréan. Chiallódh sé go leanfadh an scéim chisteshealbhaíochta liachleachtóirí ar aghaidh go ceann bliana eile. Creidim go bhfuil cúiseanna láidre ann le deireadh a chur leis an scéim seo ar 1 Aibreán 2001, mar a d’fhógair mé é bheith de rún agam a dhéanamh.
Bhuanódh leanstan ar aghaidh le cisteshealbhaíocht éagothromaíochtaí aitheanta na scéime, chomh maith leis an mhaorlathas agus na costais arda riaracháin a bhaineann léi. Dhéanfadh sí dochar do fhorbairt socruithe úra sa chúram phríomhúil agus d’fhéadfadh sí cur leis an róchaiteachas sa bhuiséad sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta, rud a rachadh go dona do sheirbhísí.
Is sainmharc í an chisteshealbhaíocht den seanmhargadh inmheánach sa chúram sláinte agus sóisialta a chaithfear a ligean chun dearmaid. Is mian liom gluaiseacht chun tosaigh a fhorbairt socruithe sa chúram sláinte agus sóisialta a bheas bunaithe ar an pháirtíocht agus ar an chomhoibriú chan ar an choimhlint agus ar an bhristeachas. Beidh mo mholtaí do shocruithe úra sa chúram phríomhúil níos cuimsithí ná an chisteshealbhaíocht, ag cur réimse níos leithne de ghairmithe cúraim phríomhúil san áireamh agus ag coimisiniú réimse níos leithne seirbhísí.
Tá roinnt fáthanna praiticiúla ann a gcreidim gur gá deireadh a chur le cisteshealbhaíocht ag deireadh na bliana airgeadais seo. Ag deireadh na bliana is dóiche go mbeidh róchaiteachas cisteshealbhóirí níos airde ná mar a bhí anuraidh — agus seo nuair atáimid ag iarraidh an ceann is fearr a fháil ar fhadhbanna easnamh agus róchaiteachais sa bhuiséad SSSP go ginearálta. Má leantar de chisteshealbhaíocht go ceann bliana eile, tá gach seans go mbeidh an róchaiteachas níos airde arís ag an am seo ar an bhliain seo chugainn. Cuireann róchaiteachas cisteshealbhóirí brúnna ar áiteanna eile i mbuiséad na seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta. Díolann na boird sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta astu agus caithfidh siad acmhainní a chur i leataobh chun na críche seo — acmhainní a b’fhearr a chaithfí ar sheirbhísí eile.
Ceanglaítear ar mo Roinn, de réir na reachtaíochta cisteshealbhaíochta, bheith sásta go bfhuil cisteshealbhóirí ag riar a mbuiséad go héifeachtach. Má leantar den chisteshealbhaíocht, tá seans go mbeidh ar an Roinn líon suntasach chleachtais an róchaiteachais a bhaint den scéim, rud a dheifreodh an scéim titim as a chéile in aimhréidh. Cuireann riar éifeachtach cisteshealbhaíochta éilimh nach beag ar chisteshealbhóirí, ar bhoird agus ar iontaobhais. Dá mbeifí an saothar mór seo le cur le scéim sheanchaite a choinneáil ag dul go ceann bliana eile bhainfeadh sin saothar agus acmhainní ón chlár suntasach oibre a bheas riachtanach i bhforbairt socruithe úra sa chúram phríomhúil.
Lena chois sin, dá leanfaí den scéim go ceann bliana eile ní dhéanfadh sin ach fad a chur leis an éiginnteacht faoina bhfuil cisteshealbhaíocht ag feidhmiú. Chuirfeadh sé leis na fadhbanna atá ag cuid cisteshealbhóirí foireann chisteshealbhaíochta a choinneáil. Ó Aibreán 1998, d’fhág 28 gcleachtas cisteshealbhaíocht. I mórán cásanna tharla seo de bharr fadhbanna le foireann a choinneáil nó a earcú agus de bharr fadhbanna a bhí acu ag riar de réir buiséad. Dá gcuirfí fad leis an scéim ní dhéanfadh sin ach cur le fadhbanna oilteacht a choinneáil agus bhainfeadh sé faoin chumas cisteshealbhóirí an scéim a riar go héifeachtach i rith a bliana deiridh.
Tá cuid mhór den airgead atá de dhíth orm le hinfheistiú i socruithe úra sa chúram phríomhúil ceangailte sna costais riaracháin a bhaineann le cisteshealbhaíocht. Má leantar den chisteshealbhaíocht go ceann bliana eile, b’éigean domh na hacmhainní atá riachtanach le socruithe úra sa chúram phríomhúil a fhorbairt a chuardach in áit éigin eile. B’fhéidir go mbeadh orm cuid den airgead a úsáid a bhí de rún agam cur le seirbhísí cúraim phríomhúil na líne tosaigh sa bhliain seo chugainn.
Tá sé de chuspóir ag mo chuid moltaí úsáid a bhaint as cuid den airgead atá ceangailte faoi láthair i gcostais riaracháin cisteshealbhaíochta le hinfheistíocht £2·5 milliún i seirbhísí cúraim phríomhúil na líne tosaigh. Dá mbuanófaí cisteshealbhaíocht chuirfí moill le scaoileadh an airgid seo.
Is maith is feasach domh an gá leis an tréimhse aistrithe idir deireadh chisteshealbhaíocht liachleachtóirí agus tús na socruithe úra a riar go cúramach agus go tuisceanach.
Ón 1 Aibreán 2001, an dáta a ceapadh do dheireadh a chur le cisteshealbhaíocht, ghlacfadh na boird sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta freagracht, go ceann tamaill ar scor ar bith, as réimse iomlán na seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta dona ndaonraí uilig a choimisiniú chomh maith le freagracht as acmhainní atá á riar ag cisteshealbhóirí faoi láthair. Coimisiúnaíonn boird bunús na seirbhísí do chisteshealbhóirí cheana féin chomh maith le hiomlán na seirbhísí do neamhchisteshealbhóirí. Toiseoidh siad ar iomlán na seirbhísí a choimisiúnú arís nuair a bheas deireadh le cisteshealbhaíocht. Leanfadh na socruithe seo ar aghaidh go dtí go raibh na grúpaí áitiúla sláinte agus cúraim shóisialta, ag brath ar thoradh an phróisis chomhairliúcháin, ábalta cuid de fhreagrachtaí coimisiúnaithe na mbord a ghlacadh orthu féin. Leanfadh liachleachtóirí ar aghaidh ag cur seirbhísí ar fáil mar a dhéanann siad faoi láthair.
I strongly oppose the amendment, the effect of which would be to continue the GP fundholding scheme for at least a further year. There are strong grounds for ending the scheme on 1 April 2001, as I have announced it is my intention to do. Continuing fundholding would perpetuate the acknowledged inequities of the scheme, and the bureaucracy and high administrative costs associated with its operation. It would be damaging to the development of new arrangements in primary care and could contribute to overspends in health and social services budgets which would affect services adversely.
Fundholding is the mark of the old internal market in health and social care, and it must now be consigned to the past. I want to move forward to develop arrangements in health and social care that will be based on partnership and co-operation, not confrontation and fragmentation. My proposals for new arrangements in primary care will be more inclusive than fundholding is. They will involve a wider range of primary care professionals and commission a broader range of services.
For a number of practical reasons it is necessary to end fundholding at the end of the financial year. At the end of the year, fundholders’ overspends will probably be higher than last year. That should not be the case at a time when we are actively trying to get to grips with the problem of deficits and overspends in the health and social services budget. If fundholding continues for a further year, the overspends may be even higher next year.
Fundholders’ overspends create budget pressures elsewhere in the health and social services. The overspends are paid for by the health and social services boards. They have to set aside resources for that purpose, resources that might have been better spent on other services. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is required, under fundholding legislation, to be satisfied that fundholders manage their budgets effectively. If fundholding continues, the Department may therefore be obliged to remove a significant number of overspending practices from the scheme, thereby hastening the disorderly disintegration of the scheme.
Mention has been made in the debate of the differences that exist between legislation for trusts and legislation for fundholding. The legislation is different, and that is why the approach is different.
Managing fundholding places considerable demands on fundholders, boards and trusts. Investing all that effort in sustaining an obsolete scheme for another year would divert effort and resources from the formidable agenda involved in developing new arrangements in primary care. Moreover, continuing the scheme for a further year would prolong the uncertainty under which fundholding has been operating. It would exacerbate the problems that fundholders have had in retaining fundholding staff.
Since April 1998, 28 GP practices have left the fundholding scheme. In many cases, that was because there were problems with retaining or recruiting fundholding staff and with managing within the budgets. Prolonging the scheme would simply increase the problems of retaining expertise and undermine fundholders’ ability to manage the scheme effectively during its final year.
Much of the money that I need to invest in new primary care arrangements is currently tied up in the administrative costs associated with fundholding. If fundholding continues for a further year, I will have to look elsewhere for the resources needed to develop new arrangements in primary care in order to bring them forward. That could mean having to use some of the money that I intend putting into front-line primary care services next year. My proposals envisage using some of the money currently tied up in the administrative costs of fundholding to invest an extra £2·5 million in front-line primary care services. Extending fundholding would delay the release of that money.
I am very aware of the need to manage the transition period between the end of GP fundholding and the start of new arrangements carefully and sensitively. On 1 April 2001 — the intended date for the ending of fundholding — the health and social services boards will assume responsibility, at least on an interim basis, for commissioning the full range of health and social services for all their populations and for the resources currently managed by fundholders. Boards already commission the majority of services for fundholders as well as all the services for non-fundholders. They will resume the commissioning of all services once fundholding ends.
These arrangements would continue under my proposals until such time as the proposed new local health and social care groups, subject to the outcome of the consultation process, are in a position to take over some of the boards’ commissioning responsibilities. GPs would continue to provide services, as they do at present.
Guidance issued by my Department has instructed boards to urgently consider, with fundholders and trusts, the impact of ending fundholding on services put in place locally by fundholders, and to ensure that these are maintained where possible. In order to provide boards with greater flexibility in managing the transition from fundholding, I have proposed that they should get additional resources for primary care in the next financial year. As a result, there will be no vacuum in the delivery of services when fundholding ends. Services will continue to be provided, and only the commissioner will change during the interim period.
I am aware of concerns raised in some quarters — and I have heard them in this debate — about the transition to new arrangements. I believe that these problems can be managed. As elsewhere, it will not be necessary to create new statutory bodies, and this, as I have said, has not happened. In developing new arrangements in primary care, health and social services boards will be given an explicit remit by the Department to support the new groups actively and positively. They will be held accountable for their performance in this regard, and will be expected to work in close partnership with primary care professionals so that all involved have real ownership of the process.
If we are to move forward, as we envisage, to a primary-care-led service, everyone in the health and social services at all levels will be expected to facilitate and support whatever emerges from the consultation process. The consultation period on the new arrangements will end on 2 March 2001. There has been a suggestion that I was asked to extend that period. I have not been asked to do that. After that date, I will take decisions quickly on the way forward in order to enable the service to turn its attention to putting in place the new arrangements early in the new financial year. The intention is to build up as quickly as possible to the implementation of the new arrangements.
During the six-month period that will be required after the end of fundholding to wind down and close fundholders’ accounts, the new arrangements will be built up. The resources needed to invest in new arrangements are currently tied up in fundholding, and investments in the new arrangements will be able to be made only as those resources are released.
12.00
There was also the issue of pilot schemes. This is a separate question and is not tied to this legislation. I want to look at how the services put in place by the pilots can be maintained during the transitional phase. However, maintaining the work of pilots is a different issue to the matter of ending fundholding.
A number of other issues have been raised, principally by Committee members, about the health and social services boards. As I said, everyone throughout the service will be expected to facilitate and support whatever emerges from the consultation exercise. I believe, therefore, that the transition from fundholding to the establishment of new arrangements can take place without disruption to services or detriment to primary care, provided that fundholding ends on 1 April 2001.
Resources for primary care will be addressed as part of my announcement about next year’s financial allocations for health and personal social services. The boards have been explicitly instructed to examine how services put in place by fundholders will be maintained. It is true, as Prof McWilliams said, that non-fundholding GPs have made savings in prescribing costs — and some of these have been substantial — through the prescribing incentive scheme which will be open to all GPs after fundholding ends.
Information technology systems and a new information and communications technology strategy for health and personal social services — which will embrace primary care — are being developed. Following the repeal of existing legislation, new regulations will be introduced outlining how any fundholder savings remaining at the end of the scheme will be used. Guidance on this will be issued with clear ideas of how savings will be used. The key issue here, however, is that fundholding savings are currently used, and will be used after the scheme ends, for the benefit of service users. In fact, fundholders who are permitted to use savings for a variety of purposes set out in the legislation have used them to improve premises, and in some cases there have been complaints that this represents a personal asset to the GP.
The proposal for change, as I have said, will not increase the power of boards. They will have to include all primary care professionals in the new arrangements that are up for consultation. They will also all be tasked with improving primary care for their populations and with the work of commissioning services for them. I can therefore give an assurance that the position of boards will not be copperfastened by arrangements whereby new groups would operate as board committees, nor will this have a bearing on the outcome of the forthcoming review of public administration. Members would not want me, at any stage, to bring forward proposals that would pre-empt that review. I am only one member of a larger Executive, and my proposals need to fit in with the wider arrangements being made by that Executive.
The establishment of the proposed new local health and social care groups as committees of the boards is to provide a legal and accountability framework within which to operate. My proposals are designed to be accommodated within existing health and social care services structures in order to not prejudice the outcome of the Executive’s planned review of public administration. However, they will be sufficiently flexible to be able to be adapted to any changes to health and social services structures that emerge from that review. My proposals in no way rule out radical changes to health and social services structures in the future, depending on the outcome of the public administration review.
I can give an assurance that staffing issues associated with the ending of fundholding will be dealt with sympathetically. Action is currently being pursued on a number of fronts to ensure that redundancies can be avoided and that the skills and expertise of fund management staff are not lost to the service.
Health and social services boards will consider sympathetically bids from practices to retain former fund management staff permanently in other posts. In making financial allocations to the health and personal social services bodies for 2001-02, I propose to provide additional resources for primary care to allow boards more flexibility in considering the staffing requirements of practices.
I hope that this will also extend to a redeployment facility, which currently exists in health and personal social services for staff who are employed in fundholding. This will enable those staff members to be matched with suitable vacancies arising elsewhere in the health and personal social services field as well as with vacancies in any new primary care arrangements set up after the consultation exercise. Some fund management staff will continue to be employed for several months following the end of the scheme to close fundholding accounts, by which time I expect fresh employment opportunities to be available within the new primary care arrangements.
This amendment, if accepted, will extend the life of a scheme that already experiences difficulties and is inherently inequitable. Depending on the outcome of the current consultation on the ‘Building the Way Forward in Primary Care’ document, I hope to press ahead quickly with developing new arrangements in primary care that will end the uncertainty that has existed in this area for a number of years. To extend fundholding for a further year is unnecessary. It will damage all progress that has been made towards the new arrangements and create greater problems for the service than it is designed to resolve. I urge that this amendment not be accepted.

Dr Joe Hendron: I would like to thank the Minister and my Colleagues who have spoken in the debate. The Minister has mentioned the matter of one year. I told the Minister on behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety that a period of six months had been suggested but that the Committee had decided that a six-month period would not work because it would end in the middle of the financial year.
I want to refer to a few of the points raised by my Colleagues. Alan McFarland spoke about the GP staff and about how we are losing expertise in these professions. That is the burning point of the debate. Paul Berry said that there is nothing in place to deal with the need for a unified service, but something credible must be in place. That is the key to the debate, and it has not been dealt with, in my opinion. Sue Ramsey said that it is the policy of Sinn Féin to oppose fundholding. That has also been the policy of the SDLP from the very beginning, as well as the policy of most Members. However, the debate is concerned with what will replace the arrangements that the Minister has proposed.
Mr McCarthy said simply that we should get this right because it concerns the future of primary care. That is it in a nutshell — we must get it right. Mr Billy Hutchinson pointed out that the money would go to the boards rather than into primary care. He made a valid point regarding these funds being taken away from occupational therapists and physiotherapists. The boards will use the money in whatever way they deem necessary, but there is a lot to be desired of it by the community.
Monica McWilliams spoke at great length on many issues. First, she talked about a period of opportunity to move forward and said that in all of this the nurses’ voices are not being heard. I have not said that the nurses’ voices are not being heard — I have spoken to many community nurses. Although I mentioned the Royal College of Nursing and the fact that I have spoken to its leadership, I have spoken with ordinary nurses as well. We will not move forward if this amendment is not accepted; we will move backwards. On behalf of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee and given my wealth of experience in primary care, I can safely say that that would be a backwards move.
Monica McWilliams also talked about building. Building on what? If the fundholding and the primary care arrangements disappear — and the Minister has not indicated that the pilots will stay — what is there to build on? That will be a backward move. Most doctors — certainly the younger ones — use generic prescribing and therefore save on prescriptions.
I have nothing but the most profound respect for community nurses. Most health visitors are employed by trusts, but some are employed by fundholders, and they are worth their weight in gold.
Rev Robert Coulter said that we needed a seamless service. That point has been made over and over again by many people in the last few months. As we move along, we should remember that John McFall’s ‘Fit for the Future’ document has been around for a couple of years. That was addressed to the Assembly and to the people of Northern Ireland, and it seems that its findings are being pushed aside. The Minister’s suggestions bear some very vague similarities to that document.
Carmel Hanna made the point about being against fundholding — which we all are — but she highlighted the problems of going back to a failed system. That is exactly what would happen on 1 April — we would go back to the 1993 situation.
We all want a first-class primary care service. I accept that the Minister wants that — way down the line. However, I have already made the point that we have every reason to be concerned about the whole transition period. That point was certainly not answered.
John Kelly said that Members were all against fundholding, and he also mentioned the deficits. He asked what we would be winding down to. I have already made the point that we would be going backwards, and I will come to the deficits in fundholding shortly.
Iris Robinson talked about inequalities and the fact that doctors have a choice. That is true, although some practices in Northern Ireland might have wanted to go to fundholding but were not allowed to. She is quite right, however, that others chose not to. The review of acute hospitals is coming up shortly, and there is an ongoing review of primary care. Those reviews should be interwoven.
Michelle Gildernew said that she wondered why the amendment was put forward. That was explained over and over again. She asked why fundholding should be propped up. I think that she was missing the point there, and she did not suggest what might take the place of fundholding.
The Minister’s key point, made again and again, concerned the financial aspects of the issue, and the perpetuating of inequalities. What she is doing, however, is going back. I accept that non-fundholder patients were at a disadvantage, and that the majority of patients under fundholders — generally speaking — were advantaged. It is now being suggested that we move a step backwards to where the boards were in control of non-fundholders. Surely we should be taking a step forward for everybody in Northern Ireland. I spoke of that earlier, as did my Assembly Colleagues who are supporting the amendment. That is what it is all about — for everyone to move forward. We have heard nice, but vague, aspirations for the future, but we have not been told specifically what will happen in the transition.
The Minister greatly emphasised the matter of overspending, and some Colleagues mentioned it. One should understand how fundholding works. When it was first introduced, amounts of funding were given to run the practices. If savings could be made of, say, £50,000 or £60,000 — not for personal gain, but from a practice’s point of view — the board would permit the savings to be used to develop that practice. That was good — perhaps another clinic could be run, or an extra nurse employed. That is fair enough. However, the following year, that money is taken off. Each year they are given a smaller budget. Any savings gained are taken from them. So, you can see how they would get in trouble.
The Minister did not comment on the four points I am going to raise on the spending issue. No additional money has been given to elective surgery in the last four or five years. Therefore, extra demand affects GPs and primary care. Elective surgery has been cancelled over and over again in hospitals across Northern Ireland. To consider the debate sensibly and positively, one must take that point into account when talking about fundholding.
The second point is that there are fewer hospital procedures — meaning operations and other types of procedures — with increased, higher-than-inflation costs. That puts more demand on primary care. The Minister has tried to reduce waiting lists, but only with token money. The main money went into acute services, and we understand the reasons why. However, that put more pressure on fundholders.
On the question of overspend in hospitals, the Royal Victoria Hospital was mentioned earlier as having a massive overspend. Belfast City Hospital is in the same situation. Almost all the hospitals have overspent.
Let us take the Eastern Health and Social Services Board as an example. Let us say that it has a contract with a main hospital and things get to the stage where the hospital has overspent. The board will then state that no more money will be forthcoming. However, GPs are buying per item of service — that is not normally the way it is expressed, but factually that is what the situation amounts to. Therefore, if the hospital is overspent it will use fundholders to bail it out.
To look at the problem from another angle, if someone presents themselves at hospital with chest pain or with acute symptoms of cancer, can a general practitioner tell a patient that his budget does not allow for the patient’s care? There is no way that that can happen. The Minister did not address those points. It was all about pushing at the primary care people and it is costing money. The hospitals are costing money. The way they are run — by trusts and boards in Northern Ireland — is what is costing money.
The acute hospitals review is coming up shortly. With respect to acute hospitals, the Health Service is in a mess and the situation goes back for many years. Hospitals and primary care are interwoven.
The Minister mentioned overspend and she also spoke about perpetuating inequalities. I think I have addressed those points. There has been chaos in many hospitals, with people lying on trolleys. If the amendment is defeated there will be chaos in primary care. I do not want those who are opposing the amendment, including the Minister, to wash their hands and walk away from that responsibility.
The Health Service boards have been around for years and have been running practices as non-fundholders. Have they succeeded? No, they have not, and we are moving backwards instead of forwards. This is not a sectarian debate, it is one about the future of primary care affecting every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland. The proposals are top-down, not bottom-up. The Prime Minister and others talked about a primary-care-centred Health Service. That is not happening here, but was in the ‘Fit for the Future’ document.
The Minister put great emphasis on the point that she would give a remit to the boards. However, we know a wee bit about remits going to the boards. Remits were made to children’s services — we discussed them in the Health Committee. I wrote to the Minister about the fact that money that should have been ring-fenced was being earmarked for children’s services. This is a criticism not of the Minister but of the system. In her reply, she said that the applicable word was "earmarked", not "ring-fenced". If the Minister is going to give remits and funding to the boards, she may advise them on what they should do, but the boards will do what they feel is necessary if their hands are tied financially. Most of the money is given to acute hospitals, but I will not repeat that point.
The Minister said that pilot schemes are a different issue. That is correct in the context of the debate on this legislation, but they are very much part of the issue. I believed — and most people in primary care believed — that the pilot schemes in Northern Ireland were to be the centrepiece for a new primary-care-led health service. Therefore they are very much part of this discussion. It would have been a positive move if the Minister had indicated that the pilot schemes, which have had outstanding results, were to be continued.
This is not a sectarian debate; it is about the future of primary health care. The people of Northern Ireland deserve the best — for heaven’s sake, let us give them the best.
Question put, 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 52; Noes 32.
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, David Ford, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Sean Neeson, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, John Taylor, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill, which now stands referred to the Speaker.

North/South Ministerial Council: Ministers’ Attendance

Mr Speaker: During a statement by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister at the Assembly sitting of 22 January 2001, Mr Ian Paisley Jnr put forward a reason for the non-attendance at a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council of the Minister for Regional Development. Mr Paisley indicated that the Minister’s non- attendance was in line with his election commitment to oppose "North/Southery".
Subsequently, Mr Maskey raised a point of order, asking whether the Minister would be in breach of the Pledge of Office by adhering to party manifesto commitments rather than to the Pledge of Office. I undertook to give a ruling.
Ministers are legally bound by the Pledge of Office set out in schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Once nominated as Ministers, and having accepted the nomination, they must, under section 18(8) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, affirm the Pledge of Office before taking up office. The obligations contained in the Pledge of Office are therefore legally binding and override any contrary political commitments.
I remind the Assembly that to date I am unaware of any situation in which a Minister who has been nominated to attend a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council has declined to do so. In such circumstances the Minister is likely to be in breach of the terms of the Pledge of Office. Comments from Members who are not Ministers cannot be taken as an indication of a Minister’s intention, irrespective of the party affiliations of the Members involved.
I understand that the High Court recently ruled on North/South Ministerial Council attendance, and I shall be studying this ruling with interest.
Finally, with regard to the remit of the Speaker, I should remind the House that, while it is open to any Member to challenge a Minister’s alleged failure to attend if he or she so wishes, it is not a matter on which the Speaker will rule. The move can be made in a number of ways. A Member may table an Assembly question, written or oral, to ask the Minister about his or her alleged non-attendance and/or his or her future intentions; a Member may apply for a judicial review for it to be determined whether the Minister’s alleged decision not to attend is in conflict with the obligations of the Pledge or Office; or a Member may initiate the procedure for exclusion provided for in section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
I trust that that clarifies the position.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Mr Speaker, have you received notice from the First Minister that he intends to come to the House to make a statement about his failed sanction on Sinn Féin/IRA following the High Court’s decision this morning?

Mr Speaker: I have received no requests from any Ministers to make statements. As a member of the Business Committee, the Member will be made aware of any statements that arise.
The sitting was suspended at 12.39 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair) —

Maternity Services

Mr Paul Berry: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to give due weight to the determination of both the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee and the Northern Ireland Assembly on maternity service provision in Belfast in light of the decision of 29 November 2000 of the High Court.
Maternity service provision has been an important issue for some time. The debate on this issue began in 1994 with the acute hospitals reorganisation project under Dr McKenna. Out of that exercise came the 1996 maternity services paper, which looked at the two options — location at Belfast City Hospital or at the Royal Victoria Hospital, with either refurbishment or a new block. The recommendation was that maternity services should be located at the tower block of Belfast City Hospital for clinical reasons — and I want to stress that point, for the clinical arguments have become somewhat clouded of late. Those clinical reasons were that the key services, namely gynaecology, neonatology and obstetrics — and other related services — would be kept together.
This was accepted by the then Health Minister, Mr Malcolm Moss, and finalised in 1997. Unfortunately, management at the Royal Victoria Hospital adopted a typically self-centred and empire-building attitude and raised a row over this decision, and the result was that a review was undertaken under Liam Donaldson in 1997. From the start, it was evident from both the membership of this committee and the fact that its remit was widened — after some petty lobbying — that this review would reach one conclusion only: location on the Royal Victoria Hospital site. Every argument, either fair or foul, which could be used to back the Donaldson line has been and is being followed, and that has been the difficulty with this issue since 1997.
For example, the ridiculous argument has been put forward that sick babies would die if maternity services were to go to Belfast City Hospital. That allegation is not only unfounded, but completely and utterly untenable. If it were true, there would be no maternity services in Northern Ireland.
Instead of decisions being made on sound, logical and clinical grounds, other criteria are being used, and the decision to locate maternity services at Belfast City Hospital has thus been overturned.
However, the flawed nature of that decision meant the matter’s being taken to the High Court by Mrs Claire Buick, and the court ruled in her favour that the decision had been procedurally unfair.
In the course of making his ruling, the judge quoted Donaldson’s view that on clinical arguments, Dr McKenna was right. The judge that said it was "understandable and justifiable". That point also needs to be emphasised, because we are given the impression that neither Dr McKenna nor anyone else knew what they were talking about. The result was yet another consultation exercise that began in July 1999, and another report was published — and if ever there was a slanted document, this was it. Every possible red herring was dragged into it, while obvious issues were ignored. There were references to other linkages that were never spelt out. In short, it was a cover-up — and an expensive one at that. This was a consultation exercise that did not consult. This was a document that was short on hard evidence.
It was, and remains, extremely disconcerting that the entire consultation process was interfered with by clinical blackmail. I use those words deliberately. The decision by paediatricians to withdraw cover from the City Hospital was a deliberate move to coerce the Department and circumvent the overwhelming clinical evidence that favoured the City Hospital.
As clinicians have done elsewhere to good effect, they demonstrated that the only thing that matters is the policy of a clinical group — everyone else can go to pot. They wanted the Jubilee closed and decided that the way to achieve that was to go on a form of strike.
Following the equally flawed consultation process, we were then treated to the rather bizarre situation of a new Minister of Health, using all her narrow sectarian bias, deciding that maternity services were to go to the Royal Victoria Hospital. Unfortunately, it has been a ministerial decision that was wrong — clinically, socially, politically and legally. The Minister’s decision to close the Jubilee, in the face of every rational and clinical argument, has resulted in a shambles that has turned our maternity services into what could be termed a joke, if it were not so serious.
It was a bad decision for our mothers across the country — hence the enormous campaign against the closure of the Jubilee. The Jubilee philosophy was an enormous benefit that has been destroyed.
It was a bad decision clinically. The Minister was unable to furnish a single rational, coherent and intelligent clinical argument in favour of her decision.
It was a bad decision politically. The Health Committee, on which I serve, voted overwhelmingly to retain the Jubilee. The Assembly also debated the issue and voted to retain the Jubilee. Yet, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety chose to ignore that.
Finally, it was a bad decision legally. A High Court challenge to her decision rightly followed. That demonstrated once again that the decision was flawed. Twice there has been a High Court decision on this issue. Each time, the Department has been found guilty, though in the recent case it was the Minister who was found guilty.
The motion calls on the Minister, in view of the decisions of the Assembly Committee and the Assembly itself, to give due weight to the High Court ruling that overturned her decision. I remind the Assembly of the need to obey the law, the need to give due respect and regard to the Health Committee and ultimately to those mothers and clinicians, all of whom argued in favour of the City site from the beginning of this process.
There is a growing body of evidence that this Minister has only one objective — to ensure that any service that can be relocated to the Royal Group of Hospitals will be placed there. It seems that we are going to see the very same wrangle over dermatology. I make that statement about the Minister on hard evidence. The Minister, in announcing her decision on maternity services, said that it was done on the best clinical advice. Some questions need to be asked of the Department. Where is that advice at present? What was that advice? Who gave the advice in the end? All of this remains hidden. I challenge the Minister and the Department to give the public the information that she and her Department have so far refused to divulge. We all wonder why.
This is decision-making by fiat, not decision-making following the normal rules of clinical, democratic and rational debate. Let us not ignore the cost of this decision. Forty staff have left the Royal as a result of the closure of the Jubilee. Services are continually being closed because of staff shortages. The wards are filthy, and mothers who are used to the level of care at the Jubilee are finding themselves treated increasingly as nothing more than clients who are to be moved out as quickly as possible.
Some warned not only that the closure of the Jubilee would be a disaster but that the short-term decision would also become a long-term millstone. Where is this new building that was promised? Where is the excellent service that was promised?
What we get instead is money slipped into the budget of the Royal Victoria Hospital to try to help it out with its wild spending spree. We get fobbed off with more and more reviews that never seem to come to any conclusions. We get public money squandered on bad health decisions that are defended in court — public taxes defending the indefensible — when it ought to be spent for the benefit of those from whom that tax was lifted.
The Jubilee should never have been closed. The Assembly needs to regain control of the situation to see that every step is taken to send all services to the City tower block or to see that a new block is built at the City Hospital for the right clinical reasons, not for narrow political self-interest. The current Minister of Health has become the "monster of health", fully evidenced in her irrational decision to close the Jubilee without any firm replacement, in the face of every sound argument.
Finally, I want to return to a statement from the Belfast City Hospital consultants. They quite clearly say:
"It is our opinion that the evidence presented to the Minister was incompetent, clinically unsound and biased against the Belfast City Hospital site. The so-called advice was produced by a group of people with no relevant expertise to enable them to give the advice they did — this is one reason why it is clinically unsound."
It is important that we listen to the words of those professional people and the consultants, who know more than, possibly, everyone in the Chamber. They also went on to say:
"We fail to understand how a Department, which has been involved in this process for so long, could have proceeded with such a flawed document and tried to pass it as clinical advice."
The motion calls on the Minister to act in accordance with the Assembly Health Committee, the Assembly itself and, ultimately, with the High Court. I commend it to the House.

Dr Esmond Birnie: This morning the Chairperson of the Health Committee said that the matter being discussed then should not be treated in a sectarian manner. That applies to this debate equally. The priority, as all Members in the House would agree, is the interests of the baby and the mother. That can and should transcend both Unionism and Nationalism, and particular constituency interests.
The fact that we are returning to debate this motion, which was considered almost exactly a year ago in the House, suggests major problems both with the content of the Health Minister’s decision and with the manner in which she carried out that decision — as ably described by the proposer of the motion. The Minister on that occasion managed to override both the majority preference of the Health Committee and what was shown subsequently to be the majority of opinion in the Assembly.
Over a century ago a particular Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, said that we should never trust experts. In this case, since most of us, including myself, have no particular medical expertise, we have had no alternative but to listen to the many experts in this field. They have, of course, sometimes given conflicting advice. It has to be said — I suppose I differ a little from Mr Berry — that strong clinical cases were made in favour of both options, which were an integration of the services on the site of the Royal Hospital or, alternatively, at the Belfast City Hospital location.
We should also recognise and pay tribute to the high quality of the service previously offered at both the Royal Maternity Hospital and the Jubilee, though there were some distinctive elements between the two locations in the manner in which maternity services were provided.
Nevertheless, and notwithstanding all that, I considered the so-called expert advice, and I found that the most convincing arguments were those which said that maternity services should be beside a major centre for women’s health care, including cancer, rather than being physically beside a children’s hospital. As the proposer noted, that principle was recognised in the 1997 McKenna Report. It was not really challenged in the subsequent Donaldson study. Indeed, it is consistent with practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Both options have their attractions, and neither is ideal. However, I believe that the balance lies with the City Hospital, because of the likely flow of mothers requiring other medical services, as opposed to the probably smaller movement of babies between a maternity hospital and the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children.
I will conclude with two general points. First, Ministers must not be allowed to become feudal lords, exercising unaccountable power in their own fiefdoms. The outcome of the debate on the Further Consideration Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill is perhaps significant in this context. Secondly, it is right to give attention to the issue of the distribution of maternity services. However, we must recognise that the House will have to move on to consider what can be done about other medical specialisms and activities, which by all reports are facing pressure and are close to breaking point.
I support the motion. It is a marker, which indicates that when the Assembly comes to finalise or approve the building of a new integrated, modernised maternity service in the city, that it should be on the Belfast City Hospital site.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I support the motion. One year ago, less a day, we were debating the siting of Northern Ireland’s regional maternity hospital. We are back debating the same issue today. What a waste of time and resources. Is there any point in further consultation?
The Minister stated that it was her decision that the regional maternity hospital would be located at the Royal Victoria Hospital site, adjacent to regional paediatric services and near to the accident and emergency department. I did not agree with her then, and I do not agree with her now. More importantly, the judge in the most recent judicial review of the case did not agree with her decision either.
This time, it is essential that there be an open and accountable decision-making process. That was not the case previously. The judge said that it was somewhat unusual for the Department not to create minutes, notes or any other records of meetings held with medical, nursing, economic and legal advisers. Furthermore, the consultant obstetric staff at the Jubilee Maternity Hospital asked to see the clinical evidence upon which the Minister made her decision. However, this request was refused. The information only came to light in the judicial review.
The Minister emphasised that the choice between the Royal Victoria Hospital and Belfast City Hospital sites was a close one. In the final analysis, she concluded that maternity services would be more clinically effective if located adjacent to regional paediatric services and the accident and emergency department on the Royal Victoria Hospital site. Despite the prolonged consultation process, the Minister allowed the advocates of the Royal Victoria Hospital site to introduce a new factor at the last moment — proximity to accident and emergency services. However, those advocating the Belfast City Hospital site were not given the same opportunity. The proximity of accident and emergency appeared to have perhaps become the deciding factor.
However, if a woman requires emergency admission while pregnant, she does not go to the accident and emergency department for treatment. Instead, she goes to the early pregnancy unit for specialised care. The proximity or otherwise of an accident and emergency department is fairly irrelevant.
Central to the Belfast City Hospital’s case was the proximity of the majority of gynaecological services and gynae-oncology. The Donaldson and McKenna Reports also agreed that that was an important factor. That is also the view of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. However, the Department’s advisers did not think that it was a strong argument.
There also seemed to be a presumption that gynaecological services would eventually go to the Royal site. The clinicians in the field — practising obstetricians and gynaecologists — believed that proximity to the adult intensive care unit was very important for critically ill mothers. On the other hand, the Minister’s advisers thought that high-dependency beds, which would be in the maternity unit on either site, would suffice. The clinicians in the field would certainly take issue with that. The latest report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists nowhere states that paediatric services need to be beside maternity services.
This time last year we had two maternity hospitals that were both excellent, though perhaps different in ethos. Where do we go from here? We are on a merry-go-round of reports, consultations and judicial reviews, which are all sucking up funds that should be used for women and babies. This time round, I ask the Minister to listen and approach the issue with an open mind. We want the best regional maternity services for all women and babies.

Mrs Iris Robinson: I commend my Colleague, Mr Berry, for tabling this motion down for debate. The decision to close the Jubilee ranks as one of the most ill-thought-out decisions a Minister has made so far in this Assembly. The High Court decision makes very sad reading. In fact, the more I read it, the more amazed I am that anyone could have been so blinded as to actually defend the closure of the Jubilee.
The judge noted that it is the Minister, Barbara Brown, to whom Parliament has entrusted this decision. The judge repeated the view that the three key services of maternity, neonatology and gynaecology should be kept together, that Donaldson had agreed to that, that it was a central issue, and, further, that the Department itself had accepted that very point, only to come back later on and say that it did not consider that it was a strong argument. That demonstrates that it knew that it was a very strong argument but, in order to back the Minister’s decision, it had to reverse that view and say that it was not.
Even more interestingly, it transpired that the origin of the idea of separating obstetrics from gynaecology came from the Royal in order to justify its intention to have maternity on its site. To make matters worse, gynaecology has been thrown into confusion as to where it ought to be. Hardly good medical practice. The judge put it much better. He said:
"The Minister was not informed that the process of separately considering the location of maternity and gynaecology services had its origin in a decision by the body charged with responsibility for overseeing preparation of the business case to support the construction of a new maternity hospital on the Royal site."
Here we have either a Minister making decisions based on half of the facts or a Minister being deliberately misled by her Department. What heads have rolled over that? Who was responsible for failing to tell the Minister? The judge said:
"The Minister did not have the relevant information to ask and correctly answer the question."
To make matters worse, we have an argument based on accident and emergency services thrown into the equation. We were told that that was the clinching argument. Nowhere else in the world and in no other clinical body of evidence has that argument ever been used. However, here we have it, and it came from the management of the Royal. When it comes to specious arguments, the management of the Royal can do it in a style that no one else can. It is no wonder that the judge said that
"the Minister committed the same breach of the requirements of procedural fairness".
The Royal was allowed to introduce a new factor without giving Belfast City Hospital any opportunity to consider it. Had the Minister understood what was happening she would have immediately thrown it out or extended consultation on the point. However, she failed to do that, and we all know why.
Had that been all, it would have been bad enough, but what follows is quite extraordinary. A letter about maternity services from Dr Hendron on behalf of the Health Committee created a frenzy in the Minister’s mind that a decision had to be reached as soon as possible. The judge drew attention to the "unusual decision"
"not to create notes, minutes or other records of the Department’s meetings with the Minister’s medical, nursing, economic and legal advisers".
How can that be? What prompted such a decision? Could it be that there was information that the Minister did not want recorded, knowing full well that her decision was suspect, illegal, immoral and clinically unsound?
The judge also ruled against the Department on the intensive care unit argument, saying that
"more reflection might have produced a more accurate analysis of this factor".
What a damning indictment of the Minister and her entire Department as it scratched around for something — anything — that would get the Jubilee closed.
Even that is not the end. The judge summed up by saying that the Minister
"did not appreciate the nature of her discretion in relation to the linkage between gynaecology and maternity services".
The Minister was persuaded
"by a linkage that was not previously featured during the long history of the decision-making process".
Thus the Minister’s decision was quashed.
It is imperative that the Minister undo the damage that she has inflicted on maternity services. She has destroyed the best maternity centre in Belfast — the Jubilee — which had a philosophy that is found nowhere else. It was a mother’s dream. Mothers had choice and control, but that has been taken from them. The Jubilee’s breastfeeding programme was the best in the Health Service. Its ethos of childbirth ensured that, unlike elsewhere, mothers were mothers and not machines. Now nurses are demoralised, staff are leaving by the score, and what have we got so far? Nothing.
If it were any other Minister or party, I would feel confident that the lessons learned from the judicial review would allow the proper outcome to be realised: a first-class maternity service based at Belfast City Hospital. However, given the nature of the individual and the party she represents, she will totally disregard the judge’s findings, the Health Committee’s majority vote in favour of the Belfast City Hospital site and the Assembly’s support for the City. So much for a new beginning.
Undoubtedly, the Minister’s party will be demanding reinstatement to the "North/Southery" following the court decision in its favour today. Likewise, we demand that she and her party — in light of the recent judicial ruling against her decision — immediately act and redress that decision. I support the motion.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I listened attentively to what Dr Birnie said, and I agree that this ought not to become a sectarian or political debate. However, when I hear words like "the monster of health" being mouthed by a member of the DUP I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion than that this is a politically motivated debate entertaining a degree of sectarianism from that party. I cannot explain in any other way why that kind of language, which we are unfortunately too familiar with, should be reiterated in the Assembly. I do not intend to play sectarianism with the DUP or its representatives here today.
It is a year since we discussed this matter — a year that has been spent in the courts battling over an issue that, as I said at the time, Belfast is fortunate to have. Coming from a rural constituency where we do not have maternity services, or at least we have a very meagre maternity service, I find it astounding to see people arguing over the siting of two hospitals within kicking distance of one another, and whether they should have a maternity service.
The judicial judgement that overturned the Minister’s decision was based on the process and not the actual decision. I listened to the radio this morning and was reminded that Baroness Denton made one decision and Tony Worthington made another decision. The Belfast City Hospital versus the Royal Victoria Hospital has been kicking about for a very long time. Perhaps we thought we had resolved it at last.
We heard talk about the overwhelming majority in the Committee, but there was not an overwhelming majority in the Committee. The Committee voted 7 to 4. A year ago the Committee Chairperson, Dr Joe Hendron, said:
"We are talking about a regional hospital service for Northern Ireland: maternity services for Belfast, but a regional service for Northern Ireland, and I want to put great emphasis on that. If we were just talking about Belfast, we could toss a coin between the Royal or the City. But we are talking about a regional service for Northern Ireland; we are talking about a regional neonatal unit for Northern Ireland to care for sick or premature newborn babies; and we are talking about a regional paediatric service for Northern Ireland. There is only one major regional paediatric hospital in the North of Ireland, and it is not my fault if that happens to be in west Belfast."
To suggest that there was some kind of overwhelming unanimity about the location of this hospital is to be totally misleading about the debate that ensued over the provision of such a critical area in the lives of mothers.
To use words like "filth" about the Royal Victoria Hospital can only have the most detrimental effect on the mothers who go there. It can only have a detrimental effect on the people of west Belfast to insinuate, comment or make a statement that somehow the Royal Victoria Hospital is a second-class service; it is redolent of days that we thought were behind us. It is, in many ways, a political debate clothed, as usual, in the kind of sick hypocrisy that we get from the DUP. I said that I was not going to get involved in mixing it with the DUP but unfortunately one is led tentatively off the path — c’est la vie.
A LeasCheann Comhairle, I said that this is too serious an issue to be used as a political football. I said here last year that
"the debate about the siting of maternity services has been long and acrimonious, embroiling no less than five Health Ministers, thousands of residents, scores of gynaecologists, obstetricians and paediatricians from as far away as America".
That was last year, and what do we have today?
I continued:
"Wednesday’s decision concluded years of wrangling and the Minister pledged on taking office that any decision she made would be made on professional grounds putting the care of mothers and babies first."
I would like to think that that is still the mind of the Minister.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: As other Members have done, I remind the Assembly that tomorrow it will be one year since we last debated this issue. One year on, it seems that little progress, if any, has been made towards the creation of a central maternity unit joined with a specialised paediatric unit. In fact, we seem to be going backwards. Who suffers because of our inaction? Mothers and children, of course — and, indeed, fathers.
This saga has been going on for at least eight years and has been subject to widespread consultations, numerous reports, and now several judicial reviews. In a sense, the motion is meaningless and superfluous. The Minister cannot do anything other than comply with the rulings of the courts and, to be fair, she has not indicated that she is going to do anything differently. It could be said that the motion is little more than a pathetic attempt by the DUP to score political points against its opponents — namely, Sinn Féin. If we had a DUP Health Minister — and that could have been the case had the DUP had the courage to accept the portfolio — would there be the same opposition? I very much doubt it.
When the Alliance Party voted on the issue, it sided with the Minister’s decision to relocate maternity services to the Royal Victoria Hospital. However, every Member of the Assembly labelled Nationalist voted to support the Minister, while every Member labelled Unionist voted against the Minister. If every debate in the Assembly on major socio-economic issues becomes polarised along Unionist/Nationalist lines, what kind of —

Ms Carmel Hanna: On point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to put it on the record that, although perceived as a Nationalist, I did not support the siting of maternity services at the Royal.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I accept the Member’s comments.
If every debate in the Assembly on major socio- economic issues were to become polarised along Unionist/ Nationalist lines, what kind of message would we be sending to the wider community about how the Assembly is going to conduct its business? Fortunately, there was cross-party support this morning. That is to the Assembly’s credit.
The original vote on maternity services did not have cross-community consensus and could not pass the safeguards created under the agreement. If we keep going in this way the potential for deadlock is clear. Most issues facing the Assembly are about the future. They do not, and should not, have anything to do with our ancient tribal squabbles. The health of our people must come first, be it our newborn babies or people coming to the end of their lives.
In a sense, the debate has now moved on. It is now recognised that maternity services have been consolidated elsewhere in Northern Ireland. That has to take place in Belfast. The Jubilee site is no longer an option for maternity services. Indeed, it has been earmarked for a new cancer unit for Northern Ireland. I say to the Assembly that the sooner that vital facility is in place, the better for everyone.
Notwithstanding the court’s decision on the procedures adopted by the Minister, Alliance still believes that the Royal Victoria Hospital is the best site for the Belfast and regional maternity unit. We are fed up with review after review, consultation after consultation, without anything being done to improve our health facilities. The main reasons are clinical. The existence of a full range of specialised paediatric services on the Royal site must be the decisive factor. Maternity services can be concentrated in Belfast, adjacent to and connected to the Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. Expert opinion suggests that maternity, neonatal and paediatric services should, ideally, be located on one site. A panel of independent experts, led by Prof Liam Donaldson, suggested that course of action. I take exception to the accusation made earlier that the outcome of their deliberations was predetermined.
For 90% of women, pregnancy is relatively straightforward. Significant problems arise in about 10% of pregnancies. One to 3 per cent of babies require neonatal intensive care. When complications arise, speed is of the essence. Transport from other hospitals not only adds time, but can create further complications.
Not every woman will give birth at the Royal, but surely it makes sense to maximise the number of births by providing easy access to specialised paediatrics? The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that decisions affecting children should be taken with their best interests at heart. That is central to our thinking when advocating a children’s commissioner for Northern Ireland, as my Alliance Colleagues here will be doing later. Women require a service in which they feel safe and in control. Regional and national policy guidance for maternity and related services emphasises the need for woman-centred care, continuity of care and the provision of choice. A full range of gynaecology services can be found on the Royal sites. The Royal Maternity Hospital has the appropriate woman-centred service. It should therefore be possible to create on the Royal site a specialised maternity unit linked to paediatrics. I understand that the main reason for granting a judicial review of the Minister’s decision was the failure to consult adequately with respect to gynaecological services. However, the point was missed that such services were available on both the Royal and the City sites.
Finally, there are some non-medical reasons for supporting the Royal Victoria Hospital. One is its relatively easy access to the road network. That, as has already been mentioned, is very important indeed. Another is the provision of parking. Policy appraisal and fair treatment (PAFT) analysis also suggests that the Royal option would increase the prospect of antenatal appointments being kept by women from deprived areas.
I must express disappointment at some of the phrases used and accusations made by Mr Berry, who moved the motion. In view of my party’s earlier stance on that provision, we cannot support the motion and will abstain. We must be realistic. The Jubilee Maternity Hospital is no more. The new provision on the Royal site must go ahead. No more time-wasting — action is needed now.

Ms Carmel Hanna: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should perhaps have declared an interest while I was speaking. I was employed by the Health Service until I was elected to this body.

Sir John Gorman: Thank you for that. The Member has set a very good example to everyone in the Assembly in declaring an interest that it is important for us to know of.

Prof Monica McWilliams: This remains a difficult debate, and the matter has yet to be resolved. My decision at the time was that the merger should not happen until we had a new purpose-built hospital, not solely for the women of Belfast, but a regional hospital with a neonatal unit. I remain very concerned.
I do not want to go over the arguments that I put to the Minister at Question Time two weeks ago, but it is important that we keep in mind that the process needs to be moved forward rapidly. There is overcrowding. Six thousand mothers and babies have been put into an old hospital, whose chief executive would agree that refurbishing it in order to bring it up to the standard for accommodating such numbers was all that was done. He was never in favour of it being a permanent solution. From speaking to him and his counterpart in the City Hospital, I know that they want a decision to be made on the siting of a new hospital.
Uncertainty creates many morale problems and there is an issue of morale attached to this decision at the moment. Having visited Ward D in the Royal Victoria Hospital, I never believed I would see such conditions. I gave birth myself in that hospital many years ago. The present conditions do not reflect the dedication of the wonderful midwives; they reflect the standards under which these people have to work. There used to be 17 beds. There are now 15 beds sitting alongside each other. There was no room to move. The beds were along the middle of the ward and there was one bathroom. I saw that for myself and it cannot be disputed. I have since been told that the midwives have to tear up blankets in order to have enough for the newborn babies. This is a new century, and no mother should have to watch that going on in a ward.
I remain deeply concerned that unless we move forward on this issue all we are doing is overburdening and stressing an already demoralised staff. We do not need a lengthy consultation process because many of the arguments are already there.
Members have reiterated the arguments on paediatrics versus gynaecology and obstetrics. Unfortunately it seems that the paediatricians had a very strong voice in the last consultations. One of the senior midwives tells me that they have visited brand-new, purpose-built maternity hospitals elsewhere in the UK and it is not the case that they have been located next to a paediatric unit. Consultants tell me that it is dangerous to move a sick baby. They say that one should stabilise the baby’s condition and then carry out whatever surgery is necessary. They say that it is much more dangerous to move a sick mother and that intensive care facilities should always be where the mother is, particularly if urgent gynaecological surgery is required.
I want to pay tribute, as my younger sister almost died as a consequence of needing an urgent gynaecological operation, which was carried out speedily because the intensive care facility was close to the gynaecological ward. The evidence continues to point to the fact that gynaecology and obstetrics should remain close to mothers and the maternity unit.
I do not want this to be a debate about buildings; it needs to be about mothers and babies in Northern Ireland and their needs. The development has already gone ahead. Any location on the Royal Hospital site would not be close to the intensive care facilities and urgent transfers would have to be made across considerable distances. None of us wish to see fatalities rising as a consequence, particularly those during pregnancy, when we have done such wonderful work in reducing the numbers of deaths during childbirth.
We have heard from the oncologists — and there cannot be anything worse than being told that one has a gynaecological-related cancer problem and that treatment will be given at different sites. A leading consultant in Northern Ireland on gynaecology was asked whether it would be possible to provide the same quality of service to patients if all gynaecological surgery were to be performed on the Royal Victoria site rather than the City Hospital site. His answer was an emphatic "No". He said that such patients need efficient and fast treatment from a physical and psychological point of view. He added that a move from the City Hospital to the Royal Hospital would be a retrograde step.
We heard a great deal about a "seamless service" in the debate on the Further Consideration Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill. The plea is being made here for a current seamless service, which would not be obtainable if the two units were to be separate.
I introduce that because when the project board sat down to look at maternity services, it found the issue of gynaecology so difficult that it left it for a future date. However, we cannot do that. All of us know and understand that if you need surgery, you should try to have as many of the people who are involved in those decisions as possible located on the same site.
We are talking about a women’s hospital. Let us not concentrate on the small number of babies who are sick but on the large number of women who give birth under normal circumstances and whose outcomes are predictable. It is clearly the case that there are a number of unpredictable outcomes in relation to pregnancy, and that is when you need neonatal services to be at their best. I remain concerned about the neonatal services at the moment, having been told that they were closed to outside admissions on three occasions in December. One woman was transferred to the Royal Victoria Hospital from another hospital on Christmas Eve. There were insufficient cots, and so she had to be moved again to the Craigavon neonatal unit. That is not good for our regional neonatal services, as they are being told that they are simply taking the overload. Why can they not take women with babies at other times of the year? We are sending very bad messages to the regional services outside the centre, which is supposed to be the centre of excellence.
It is no reflection on those working in the Health Service. It is because we do not have sufficient neonatal nurses. They are having to try to be innovative in the way that they deal with very sick babies in the intensive care unit at the moment.
Medical negligence cases remain an awful issue. Let us not have a Health Service that has to pay out huge sums of money for medical negligence. We saw in the budget for health and personal social services last year that over £3 million was paid out. Let us be forwardthinking and try to plan for these emergencies so that we have services in place where surgery can take place effectively and efficiently.
Ms Carmel Hanna has already outlined the issue of accident and emergency departments. It was extremely unfortunate that this was brought in as a separate issue and, as the judicial review pointed out, a rather irrelevant issue in the end. The consultants make the point that since accident and emergency has remained on the City Hospital site, and since gynaecology services are also located on that site, we should integrate and co-ordinate them, and that it would be a disaster if we were to create isolated units elsewhere.
Another question is the biased and non-independent nature, not of the consultations but, initially, of the project board. If another one is ever established, it needs to be independent. There were three representatives from the City Hospital and nine representatives from the Royal Victoria Hospital, and it was chaired by the chief executive of the Royal Victoria Hospital. I am not at all disparaging of the roles of professionals in the Health Service. All I am suggesting is that there is a conflict of interest if you are the chief executive of one hospital and are attempting to make a decision on any site, move or merger. You cannot possibly be asked to do that if you are simultaneously putting in a business case for that to be on your own site. It is unfair to ask anyone to chair such a board and try to remain independent at the same time, never mind the fact that the numbers speak for themselves.
We have had the mistakes. Let us address them. They say that the meaning of silliness is to do more of the same and expect a different outcome. We cannot afford to do more of the same.
The other question is how much the judicial review of the Buick case and the more recent Hindes case cost. The figures are not based on any empirical evidence — I have asked those questions and am awaiting an answer. We know that it is expensive to take cases through the courts — those cases cost over £1 million. I am still waiting for a response from the Department. The Chairperson can confirm that when officials from the Department came to address us over a month ago, I asked for the figures. How often have we been taken to judicial review? We should not be letting the courts make these decisions. We should be attempting to be independent and basing decisions on clinical evidence and evidence from women, women’s groups, community groups, midwives and many others who are working at grass-roots level in the Health Service.
I am not just making a plea for an integrated service, which is the most important priority. We also need to avoid following the project team’s suggestion of separating pre-natal gynaecological services from post-natal services. That cannot be allowed to happen, because many gynaecological matters must be dealt with together. During the training of specialist surgeons in this field, no distinction is made between pre-natal and post-natal patients. Their expertise is derived from their experience in dealing with problems right across the spectrum.
When I read the judicial review I was also concerned about the breach of the need to be fair. This is a fairly damning indictment, and the issue must be addressed. There were neither notes, minutes nor records kept of crucial meetings. When we got devolution we promised that we would be accountable and transparent. Without transparency, how can we expect action groups to be well-informed? We need women to be active in our constituencies.
Finally, we should move quickly down this road, because the issue does not just affect Belfast City Hospital and the Royal Victoria Hospital. It has implications for the Mater Hospital, Lagan Valley Hospital, the Downe Hospital and the Ulster Hospital as well. In response to Mr McCarthy’s final points, I must say that the vote should not have been described as being split between Nationalists and Unionists. I also voted in the Lobby, as I did on the Committee, for the Jubilee to remain open, yet Members know that I am from the Catholic community and am so perceived. It is time to move forward on this issue.
I will be concerned if the private finance initiative is to play a predominant part in this decision-making. As Members know, on previous occasions I have spoken out about introducing private finance into the National Health Service. If that is to be a part of the decision on a new maternity unit, I would like a debate on the matter to take place now rather than at the very last stage.

Mrs Joan Carson: As a representative of a rural constituency without a maternity service, I support the motion, which calls for the retention of, or improvement work on, maternity services in Belfast. It should be carefully noted by the Minister, since the issue of Belfast’s maternity services will not go away until it is addressed in a consistent manner. Northern Ireland and Belfast need a good maternity hospital. The saga of maternity service provision in Belfast will continue following the Minister’s decision to issue a directive in favour of the Royal Victoria Hospital and her claim that the decision was her prerogative, which she said could not be challenged. This decision flew in the face of the recommendation of the Health Committee, which favoured the Belfast City Hospital as a site for the maternity hospital. The decision also highlighted the derisive way in which the Committee was treated by the Minister.
However, it transpired that the Minister’s prerogative could be challenged in the High Court. I am not surprised by the Department’s and the Minister’s shabby treatment of Belfast’s maternity services, for my area of South Tyrone has also been treated shoddily on this subject. My constituents in Fermanagh and South Tyrone received countless promises that the removal of services was merely temporary, yet every single promise to restore services was broken.
South Tyrone Hospital was promised a midwifery-led service, and it is still waiting for it. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has failed to address this very important part of the Health Service quickly, and this failing must be addressed immediately. The Department and the Minister are failing in their duty to ensure the equality of treatment envisaged in section 75 and schedule9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
The relationship between the Department, the health boards and the trusts is called into question — it has always been rather too convenient in the past to keep passing the buck. The Minister must take responsibility for the failure to provide adequate maternity services for the people of Northern Ireland, in the Belfast area and, particularly, in my area of South Tyrone. I would welcome the return of maternity services there.
This sorry affair of the problems of the Belfast maternity service is merely the tip of the iceberg, and it must be resolved quickly. This is too important an issue for the Minister to make a decision on it without referring to her Committee, the Executive and the Assembly. She and her Department are not infallible. I support the motion.

Sir John Gorman: I call Dr Hendron, who, I think, will be speaking as a Back-Bencher rather than as Chairperson of the Health Committee. Is that correct?

Dr Joe Hendron: It is sort of half-and-half, Mr Deputy Speaker.
First, I apologise for not being here for the beginning of the debate. I understand and respect the motion put forward by Mr Berry. I have spoken on this subject on many occasions in the Chamber, in the House of Commons and in other places over the last few years. I have not had an opportunity to study the judgement that this debate is really about.
This debate is a very important one, and the matter should have been resolved long ago. People talk about empire-building, and I do not want to point the finger at any one person or hospital. However, the senior staff of the Royal Maternity and City Hospitals could have had this resolved years ago. Nevertheless, as this important matter will be coming before the Health Committee, I shall make no further comment until then.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, Mr Deputy Speaker. Dr Hendron has caught me unawares — he was so quick. I was trying to concentrate on the next debate. I am getting a beating for this morning, Joe!
The decision on the site for a new hospital for women and babies throughout the North has been due for a number of years, and the building of a new site will delay that decision. As a member of the Health Committee who voted in favour of the Royal Victoria Hospital, I believe that my decision then was the right one, and I uphold it. I based that decision on much evidence mentioned earlier today but also on presentations from a number of groups, in particular those from the Shankill Women’s Centre and the Falls Women’s Centre. They all pointed to the need for proper maternity services, and they indicated that the Royal was the best option.
The Minister made her decision based on what were the best options for parents and babies and on the clinical evidence which was presented to her. I would like to point out that the judicial review and the judgement were based on the consultation process and not on the decision on where maternity services should be placed.
After taking up her role in the Department, the Minister visited both the Royal and the Jubilee. We must give her credit for the consultation process she was involved in, because she did speak with interested parties herself.
A Member spoke earlier about the report and the recommendations from Dr McKenna and Prof Donaldson. It was pointed out that this acute hospital reorganisation project, which was set up in 1994, and headed by Dr McKenna, made 28 recommendations, 27 of which were accepted by both the City Hospital and the Royal. A second report was commissioned, chaired by Prof Donaldson, and he concluded that to provide the best possible services, maternity and paediatric centres should be side by side.
As Mrs Carson and John Kelly pointed out, we need to emphasise that this is the new regional maternity centre for everyone. We are talking about hospitals whose sites are 1·5 miles apart, and rural people do not have such a luxury. Not all Committee members endorsed the recommendations; the vote was 7-4.
Members have already spoken about confusion in the Health Service. This ongoing saga of maternity services in Belfast has added more confusion, not only to the staff but also to mothers and babies and families. As Monica McWilliams said, this comment is not intended as an attack on staff. Staff should be spoken of highly and congratulated at every opportunity for the work they do in maternity services.
I ask the Minister to take on board not only the views of the Assembly and the Health Committee but those of everyone involved in the consultation exercise. I am confident that she will do so. Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Ní gá domh a chur i gcuimhne do Theachtaí gur ceist í seo atá á plé gan réiteach le roinnt blianta. Leoga, bhí sí á plé i bhfad sular bunaíodh an Tionól — rinne Mr Berry tagairt dó sin nuair a bhí sé ag moladh an rúin.
Nuair a rinne mé an cinneadh ní raibh ar m’aird ach leas na mban, na máithreacha agus na leanaí. Tuigim go maith an tábhacht a bhaineann leis an chinneadh seo a dhéanamh mar is ceart. Tá an t-ospidéal máithreachais cónasctha barrthábhachtach do Bhéal Feirste agus, mar ionad réigiúnach máithreachais, don Tuaisceart ina iomláine. Ní cinneadh é seo a rinne mé i mí Eanáir seo caite gan machnamh a bheith déanta agam ina leith.
Is é a bhí ar intinn agam mo chinneadh a bhunú go daingean ar bhreithniú cúramach gairmiúil ar gach — gach — eolas cuí. Agus mé ag cuimhneamh air seo, bhain mé úsáid as na freagraí mionchruinne a fuarthas mar chuid den bhabhta mór comhairliúcháin a rinneadh i bhfómhar na bliana 1999; bhuail mé leis na príomhghrúpaí tacaíochta don dá aonad máithreachais; chuir baill foirne an dá iontaobhas ábhar faoi mo bhráid agus labhair mé leo; agus thug mé cuairt ar an dá ospidéal.
Chuir mé cinntí anailís neamhspleách PAFT san áireamh go cúramach; rinne mé breithniú ar dhá bhreithmheas eacnamaíocha a coimisiúnaíodh go speisialta; agus bhain mé leas as a lán anailíse agus comhairle gairmiúla mionchruinne ó mo Roinn féin. I ndeireadh na dála, bhí sé de bhuntáiste agam go bhfuair mé comhairle ón Choiste Sláinte, Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Sábháilteachta Poiblí a tháinig le chéile dhá uair i mí Eanáir le freagra a ullmhú ar iarratas uaim go gcuirfeadh sé a thuairimí ar an bhealach chun tosaigh faoi mo bhráid.
D’aontaigh muid gur ghá cinneadh a dhéanamh go práinneach; d’aontaigh muid gur ghá ospidéal máithreachais nua a fháil in áit ospidéil athchóirithe; d’aontaigh muid gurbh é an t-aon rogha idirlinne seirbhísí máithreachais a chónascadh san Ospidéal Ríoga Victoria; agus d’aontaigh muid nár cheart réiteach buan a dhéanamh den réiteach eatramhach. Níor aontaigh muid ar phointe tábhachtach amháin: an áit inar cheart an t-ospidéal nua a lonnú. Chuir an Coiste in iúl domh nach dtiocfadh leis teacht ar aon intinn faoi ach go raibh a bhunús i bhfách le hOspidéal Chathair Bhéal Feirste.
Thomhais mé agus mheáigh mé gach — gach — eolas a bhí ar fáil agam agus mé ag teacht ar an chinneadh a rinne mé. Is í sin an fhreagracht atá orm mar Aire. I ndeireadh na dála is é a bhí mar threoir agam nuair a rinne mé an cinneadh measúnú eolach a bheith déanta agam ar cad é ba sábháilte agus a b’fhearr do mháithreacha agus do leanaí.
I need not remind Members that this issue has been running unresolved for a number of years. Indeed, it predates the establishment of the Assembly, and Mr Berry made reference to its being a long saga during his opening speech. In taking this decision, my sole focus was the welfare of women, mothers and babies. I well understand the importance of getting this decision right. The combined maternity hospital is vital for Belfast and as the regional maternity centre for the North as a whole. When I made this decision in January of last year I did not make it lightly. My intention was to firmly ground my decision on a careful and professional consideration of all the relevant information. With that in mind, I drew on the detailed responses to the major consultation exercise undertaken in autumn 1999 — an exercise that was completed before I took office as Minister.
I met the main support groups for both maternity units; I received presentations from, and spoke to, the staff of the two trusts; and I visited both hospitals. I also took careful account of the findings of an independent policy appraisal and fair treatment (PAFT) analysis. I considered two specially commissioned economic appraisals, and I had the benefit of a great deal of detailed, professional analysis and advice from my Department.
Finally, I had the advantage of the advice of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee. The Committee met twice in January 2000 to draw together a response to my request for its views on the way forward in that year. We agreed that a decision was urgently needed; we agreed that a new maternity hospital was required, rather than a refurbished one; and we agreed that, in the interim, the only practical option was to combine maternity services at the Royal. We also agreed that the interim solution must not become the final solution.
The location of the new hospital was the one significant area in which there was disagreement. The Committee advised me that it could not reach a consensus view, but it reported a majority vote in favour of the Belfast City Hospital site. In reaching my decision, I measured and weighed all the available information — that is my responsibility as Minister. In the final analysis, my decision was guided by my informed assessment of what was safest and best for mothers and babies.
Immediately following my decision, the Royal Group of Hospitals began work on a business case for a new maternity hospital on the Royal Victoria Hospital site. The trust had intended to bring its outline business case to the Department by the end of this month — January 2001 — but, following the court’s ruling, work on this has been suspended.
When an issue such as this ends up in court, it is inevitable that plans will fall behind schedule and that there will be delays. In the debate today, Members have repeatedly spoken of the delay. I appreciate the problems arising from the continuing uncertainty over the location of the new maternity hospital, and I want to take this important development forward as quickly as possible. That is why, on 18 January, I announced that I have initiated work on the preparation of a further consultation process to help me bring about the required new maternity hospital, and, once again, I will be guided by what is best for women, mothers and babies. I have asked that this work be taken forward as a matter of urgency, with a view to getting further consultation under way in the spring.
I have some reservations about the basis of the judgement that overturned my decision, and I have thought long and hard about taking this matter to appeal. I am, however, particularly concerned, as are those who spoke today, about there being further unnecessary delay in developing the new maternity hospital, and I have concluded that to appeal that court ruling would not be in the best interests of those who rely on these services. I accept the advice given by Members in this debate that a new maternity hospital is needed soon. It is my responsibility, as Minister, to take this matter to a successful conclusion, and that is what I intend to do. That is important.
It has been suggested during the debate that the letter from the Committee to me in January 2000 led me to make an early decision. However, the need for an early decision had already been signalled well in advance of the letter. Everybody I met, including the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, pressed me for an early decision. There is also a suggestion that the gynaecology issue has been driven by a decision of the Royal Victoria Hospital committee. That was not the case, as was made clear in the course of the judicial review. The decision to separate gynaecology had been taken by a previous Minister.
The separation of obstetrics and gynaecology was also raised. There was talk of the separation of pre- and post-pregnancy gynaecology and references to the proximity to intensive care and the factor of accident and emergency. In essence, obstetrics and gynaecology, although provided by the same individuals, are provided to largely separate groups of women. Gynaecology services are provided to women when not pregnant — or during the early stages of pregnancy — and obstetric services are provided to women who are pregnant.
Regarding the reference to separate populations of non-pregnant women, some will never become pregnant but may require gynaecology services. Others may require post-pregnancy treatment.
As regards the proximity to intensive care, both sites have access to that and this factor could not weigh in favour of either. With high-dependency beds in a combined maternity unit, it is thought that very few women would require an intensive care bed.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Does the Minister agree that the point about high-dependency beds was raised during the judicial review? A distinction was made between a high-dependency unit and an intensive care unit. The judge argued that there had been a slight bias in the Department suggesting that a better option might be put forward and, indeed, that a high-dependency unit could have been provided on either site. The judge suggested that, with the use of the word "better", there was a bias and we would be better concentrating our attentions on the potential of some women dying, even though it is a small number. Hence the requirement for intensive care as opposed to high-dependency care.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: As both sites have access to intensive care services, and will therefore be able to cater for people who need those services, the factor could not weigh in favour of one site or the other. The high-dependency beds in a combined maternity unit would be able to cater for the larger number of women who would not need access to intensive care services.
On the question of the new factor of accident and emergency, I am committed to real consultation and I do expect that issues will arise out of the process. The suggestion that accident and emergency was the overriding factor, as opposed to just being a factor, is not correct. Its inclusion reflected that it was a factor and that it could make a difference to some women.
A significant number of serious conditions in early pregnancy, particularly ectopic pregnancy, may give rise to problems before a woman is aware that she is pregnant. Many women will present at an accident and emergency unit and not an early pregnancy clinic.
The link between gynaecology and oncology is important, as are other linkages. The care of women with cancer involves urgent, but planned, treatment in the main, involving multidisciplinary teams. These cases are quite different from the emerging gynaecology cases that are presenting through the accident and emergency department and coming in as emergency gynaecology cases.
As regards the urgency of maternal versus neonatal conditions, the availability of relevant expertise and facilities for mothers differs little between the two sites. The availability of the relevant expertise and facilities for sick newborns, however, differs significantly.
With regard to the withdrawal of neonatal services by paediatricians, the neonatal service at the Jubilee was inspected by the relevant Royal College, which determined that the service was not suitable for training junior medical staff, thus rendering it non-viable. That drove the change. It was not and cannot be for me as Minister to challenge the clinical advice of the Royal College.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Surely that same decision could have applied to the Mater and to many other hospitals. We do not have a new maternity hospital, and it might have been expensive in the interim to pay for the extra services to be placed at the Jubilee, but surely that would have been a better solution than closing the Jubilee at that stage.

Sir John Gorman: Had the Minister finished?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: No. I gave way to Prof McWilliams on that point.
With regard to the Royal College’s decision at that particular time, Prof McWilliams will be aware that, following that inspection, the Belfast City Hospital made significant efforts to make good the difficulties that had arisen and to overcome the points raised, and was not able to do so. Had it been able to do so, there might have been a different outcome.
As regards the question of private finance, as with any major capital development, the first stage is the submission of a business case for approval by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Finance and Personnel. I have already dealt with what has happened with that in the interim.
There is a comprehensive business case approval process in place that ensures, as is demanded in this case, that there is no presumption that private provision is better than public or vice versa. Objective assessment of all available options is required. Any agreement for the building of a new hospital will be subject to this process.
In setting in motion a new consultation process, it is important that I state publicly for the record that I am approaching this issue with an open mind. I will approach this decision as I would any other: in a totally professional manner. I am determined that the new process should be both open and transparent. It must take careful account of the legitimate concerns of all those with an interest in this development.
With that in mind, the team developing the new consultation process is arranging to meet the interested parties in the coming weeks to listen to their views and ideas on how the consultation should be carried out. My intention is to issue a fresh consultation document in the spring. This document will provide an opportunity for all those with an interest in this matter to register their views and contribute to the shaping and development of the new service.
Of course, the process will be the subject of detailed equality proofing in accordance with the current legislation. In taking this matter forward, I am more than happy to give due weight to the views of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee and to the Assembly itself, alongside all the other inputs that, as Minister, I must consider.
In summary, my aim is to arrive at a decision that will provide the best and most sustainable maternity service for the women, mothers, and babies of Belfast and the North in the years to come. I am sure that Members here today join me in seeking to give substance to this long-overdue development.

Mr Paul Berry: This has been an interesting debate on a serious issue. Members raised many points and issues. One of the first Members to speak, Dr Esmond Birnie, made a good point. He said that the mother’s interest and well-being was most important. We all agree with that. That is why I proposed the motion. I did not do it on a political basis, which some have accused me of, but for mothers’ interests right across this country and because of the seriousness of the issue. The well-being of mothers is certainly not advanced if 40 staff have left the Royal Victoria Hospital and services continue to close because of this decision. Mothers, children and babies are not being dealt with properly. Ms Carmel Hanna, who supports the motion, clearly said that, at times, it has been a waste of the consultation period. We can all recall the hours that the Health Committee spent debating this issue. Many good points and arguments were put forward.
However, I want to remind Members across the Chamber that a majority on the Health Committee voted in favour of siting maternity services at the Belfast City Hospital. It was not a one-party issue. Some Members, particularly Mr McCarthy from the Alliance Party, said that it was a Unionist/Nationalist argument. Carmel Hanna and Monica McWilliams said that that was not the case. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to remind Members that Ulster Unionist, DUP, SDLP and Women’s Coalition party members all voted in favour of the Belfast City Hospital site. Those Members who said that it was a Unionist/Nationalist argument were totally and utterly wrong.
As Carmel Hanna said, the new process must be completely open and accountable. Members such as Mrs Robinson asked why there were no notes or minutes concerning this decision. What are the Minister and the Department trying to hide? The Department, and the Minister in particular, will have to answer these questions, because she did not answer the questions raised in the Chamber today. Mrs Robinson said that the decision was suspect, immoral and clinically unsound. Those who support the Belfast City Hospital site stand by that conclusion.
One of the most interesting statements came from IRA/Sinn Féin Member Mr John Kelly. He said that I should not have said that there was a "monster of health" instead of a Minister of Health. I stand by those words. I would have so called any Minister who had made that decision. It came across quite clearly that some of these Sinn Féin/IRA Members — [Interruption]

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is the use of the word "monster" to depict another Assembly Member acceptable parliamentary language?

Sir John Gorman: I would like to study that before making a decision.

Mr Paul Berry: It came across clearly in the Health Committee and in today’s debate that Sinn Féin/IRA Members are nothing but glorified spokespersons for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. On every decision made, they jump behind their Minister and say "Yes, Minister. No, Minister." It has come across quite clearly time and time again.
Mr John Kelly, the Sinn Féin/IRA spokesperson, was concerned that I raised the serious matter of filth in the Royal Victoria Hospital’s corridors. That comment did not come from me; it came from the nurses who are working in the Royal Victoria Hospital. I will give you an example.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Member had intended to quote from some source, he should have named the source in the course of his address. He should not be coming back now to make excuses for what he said.

Sir John Gorman: I cannot accept that point of order. As the Member is making his winding-up speech he is entitled to make a quote. However, I ask him not to be repetitive.

Mr Paul Berry: For security reasons I will not give information about the source, especially as it concerns the Royal Victoria Hospital. We are all well aware of what happened to my Colleague Mr Dodds and his children while in the Royal Victoria Hospital.
I will return to what I said about the filth in the Royal Victoria Hospital — I would say the same about other hospitals across the country if they were in a similar situation. Only last week a nurse informed me that a patient had vomited on the hospital corridor and that the vomit lay there until it was caked into the floor. I am not blaming the nurses or the medical staff, for I know they are under extreme pressure, but more must be done to deal with this problem. Those matters must be addressed and taken up with the Royal Victoria Hospital.
Once again, Mr Kieran McCarthy talked about the Nationalist/Unionist agenda and the arguments that were put forward. I spoke about that earlier and about the representation that was on the Committee at that time. Ms McWilliams said that decisions must be made as soon as possible. I agree, as, I am sure, do the majority of Members. Low morale is a great problem in both hospitals at present, and that must also be addressed. There are great pressures on the staff.
Joan Carson talked about the treatment of the Health Committee at the time the decision was made. I again state that the majority of the members of the Health Committee felt betrayed by the Department when the decision was made.
I have not heard the Minister say anything beneficial to this debate today. Her decision was bad for mothers and was bad clinically. The Minister is still unable to furnish a single rational, coherent and intelligent clinical argument in favour of her decision. It was bad politically, as the Health Committee and the Assembly voted for the Jubilee to remain open and for the maternity services to remain at the Belfast City Hospital. It was bad legally, because the High Court challenge on the Minister’s decision, which rightly followed, demonstrated again that it was a flawed decision.
We have one firm conclusion today, and I will state it again. The Jubilee should never have been closed. The Assembly needs to take every step to regain control of the situation. This is a very important situation and it is not a political situation in the way it has been accused of being today. I tabled the motion today for the well-being of all mothers across the country, and I trust that every Member will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to give due weight to the determination of both the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee and the Northern Ireland Assembly on maternity service provision in Belfast in light of the decision of 29 November 2000 of the High Court.

Garda Síochána

Mr Danny Kennedy: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Secretary of State to make representations to the Government of the Republic of Ireland to conduct a public inquiry into suspected collusion between members of the Garda Síochána and the Irish Republican Army in the planning and execution of acts of terrorism.
I am grateful for and welcome the opportunity to raise this important topic. It is timely and important. May I say at the outset that I reject the amendment in the names of MrAlban Maginness and MrAttwood, who apparently are happy with internal inquiries. I do not believe that those inquiries would satisfy public confidence. An internal inquiry would be open to allegations of a political whitewash and, therefore, it is unacceptable.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
It is important to look at the historical background to the motion. Over many years, serious allegations have been made that members of the Garda Síochána have actively colluded with Republicans, particularly Republicans in the Provisional IRA. Evidence of that is emerging from books by respected journalists, Northern Ireland authors and individuals living in areas in which incidents such as the murder of RUC officers — many high-ranking — and the attempted murder of RUC, RIR and UDR officers have occurred. There has also been the murder and attempted murder of officials of the Northern Ireland judiciary system and private individuals. Those collusion allegations will not go away until they are properly dealt with.
I do not want to individualise cases. That would be improper given the heartfelt cases involved, and it would rekindle the pain felt by many families. I am not interested in politicising items of this nature. Those events have taken place, and they must be investigated.
It is clear that incidents of this nature could not have taken place without the involvement of Garda Síochána officers at some time. There is very clear evidence that garda stations in the north County Louth area and their operational material were used to pinpoint the movements of RUC officers, security personnel, officials of the Northern Ireland judiciary system and individuals, which ultimately led to their murder.
It is important to state the necessity to hold an inquiry into the activities of rogue garda officers who have stained the reputation of that force. I am not making a call for the abolition of the Garda Síochána. I want to place on record that I recognise the attempts made by garda officers at local level to help and assist the RUC and the security forces with murder inquiries and other investigations and incidents. Had it not been for political interference by Government people in Dublin, there might have been more success over the years in getting information on many of these incidents. I know from personal experience about the willingness of garda officers and their dedicated attempts to eradicate IRA terrorism in the border area. Those attempts failed to get proper political support from the Governments of the day. Successive Dublin Governments and Irish politicians, at the very highest level, have much to answer for. With the recent release of cabinet papers in relation to the arms trial, we saw that very prominent senior politicians in the Republic had been involved in the establishment, arming and funding of the Provisional IRA. Arms were procured, and Republicans were made ready to wage war on the Unionist people of Northern Ireland.
We might usefully ask for an independent inquiry into that disgraceful chapter of Irish history. Of course, I, amongst others, remain completely astonished at the hypocrisy of the Irish Government and Irish Government Ministers in their unending demands for public inquiries into events that have taken place in Northern Ireland. I think they should clean their own barrel out in relation to events of this nature instead of insisting and ordering public inquiries into the affairs of another jurisdiction — this part of the United Kingdom.
It is clear that internal inquiries conducted by garda officers, who would, after all, be investigating their colleagues, will not satisfy public opinion, especially in Northern Ireland, particularly in the border areas. Therefore, I believe that this Assembly should call for a full-scale, independent and international commission to investigate these matters on an open, impartial and transparent basis. Let us have the truth — warts and all.
It appears that corruption is almost a way of life in the Irish Republic, certainly within the political class, with senior politicians constantly being investigated for unlawful and illegal actions. We have witnessed tribunals investigating irregularities in respect of land and property deals, beef and all manner of illegal behaviour by politicians there, yet they have the effrontery to lecture us on standards of policing here.
Allegations have been made — many of them by a very well-known and respected author, MrTobyHarnden, in his recent book ‘Bandit Country’. They have not been dealt with, and I think they warrant a full and impartial investigation. In view of the importance of this matter, such an investigation should be undertaken by a panel of international law experts, either from Northern Ireland or from other parts of the United Kingdom — perhaps even someone from North America. If it can be proved that there was collusion, as I believe it undoubtedly will be, then prosecution must follow. Let the Republic of Ireland authorities prove that they will not stand for illegal behaviour on the part of their security forces. Let them prove that there is no hiding place for murderers, especially those motivated by sectarian hatred.
I believe that unless and until there is such an inquiry, it is not, and will not be, possible for the very open wounds suffered by Northern Ireland’s people — particularly those who live in the border areas who are pro-Union and who have felt most keenly the murder campaign directed against them from people in the north Louth area and other parts of the Irish Republic, helped in some way by rogue garda officers — to heal. They will never be able to have a proper relationship with the Irish Republic or to trust the Irish Republic and its authorities.
I look forward to a healthy and constructive debate. I will be interested to hear the reasoning behind the SDLP amendment, which essentially calls for an internal inquiry. I contrast that with their recent demands on aspects of policing in Northern Ireland. I will also be interested to see what, if any, response comes from the Members who represent active Republicans.

Mr Alban Maginness: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "Assembly" and add
"notes the current investigation into allegations made against certain Garda Síochána officers and that a report arising from the investigation is to be submitted to the Irish Government in the near future."
I was disappointed by Mr Kennedy’s opening speech. I had expected much more detail on the allegations forming the basis of the motion. In fact, the motion itself is vague. There are no details or dates given, and the nature of the allegation has not been specified beyond simple collusion. It is fair to say that, while he has made sweeping allegations, he has been very short on detail. That is disappointing, because one would have hoped that Mr Kennedy would provide details for some of the arguments he put forward. Furthermore, he called for an international public inquiry. That is absent from the substantive motion. He said that he finds the present garda investigation to be unsatisfactory and he is critical of internal investigations, as, indeed, the SDLP would be. I support his view that they fall short.
Nonetheless, let us look at the totality of the situation and attempt a reasoned debate based on that. The SDLP’s position is quite clear. In no way does it condone any cover-ups, nor would it be party to them. It wants to see the truth exposed and it wants to see those who are guilty of any crimes of collusion or co-operation with terrorist organisations brought before the courts, convicted and sentenced. The SDLP has nothing to hide, and it supports the most rigorous examination of collusion. It has always been committed to human rights and non-violence, and it views any collusion by any police force anywhere — including the Garda Síochána — with abhorrence. It regards any collusion as monstrous, deplorable and quite unacceptable.
In the past, it has been alleged of two garda officers that they colluded in some way with the Provisional IRA in the murder of judicial figures, their families, at least two senior RUC officers and some other serving members of the RUC.
This forms the basis, the kernel and the very centre of the present motion. These allegations have been brought to the attention of the Irish Government and, in particular, to the attention of the present Minister for Justice, Mr O’Donoghue. It is a matter of public record, particularly inside Dáil Éireann, that he views these allegations with deep concern. His attitude has not been one of dismissal or of cover-up. There has been an intensive investigation by the Garda Sióchána.
I might add that that investigation involved not only the garda but the RUC. The RUC investigated allegations made in respect of incidents that took place in Northern Ireland, and the Garda Síochána investigated those which took place in the jurisdiction of the Republic. Those allegations related to incidents that occurred in the 1980s and the 1990s. The two police forces, therefore, co-operated closely on the investigations.
As a result of those investigations there was no — I use the term advisedly, and it was used by the Minister — tangible evidence uncovered to show that information was passed by a garda informant, or informants, to the Provisional IRA.
Subsequent to that internal investigation by the Garda Síochána, similar, or the same, allegations emerged. Once again, these were raised in Dáil Éireann and, once again, the Minister for Justice viewed them with deep concern and dealt with them very seriously indeed. As a result of representations made inside and outside the Irish Parliament, he ordered fresh investigations into the allegations. He regarded them as raising issues of the utmost seriousness. He said that their repetition in the media caused understandable concern, North and South, and he was committed to finding the truth in relation to them. He said — and repeated — that, even though there was no tangible evidence to substantiate the re-emergence of these allegations, every effort must be made to assure, and to reassure, the public, both North and South, that they had been thoroughly investigated. The Garda Commissioner was therefore asked to appoint a senior officer to examine the files and to further investigate the allegations. That appointment was made.
We should await the result of that investigation from the Garda Síochána before calling for what is central to this motion today — a public inquiry into those allegations.
My party and I hope that the investigation will be successful in establishing either that there is nothing to the allegations or that there is substance to them. If there has been collusion between members of the gardaí and the Provisional IRA, we hope that evidence sufficient to bring to prosecution those people who committed such offences — and offences they are — can be established and that those people will be brought to court and prosecuted for their crimes. That is my hope in relation to that investigation, and I hope that, ultimately, it will be successful.
If the investigation does not unearth sufficient evidence to establish the basis for a prosecution, yet does establish that there was an element of collusion that needs to be properly and further investigated, then at that stage we should consider taking the course of action contained in the motion. We should consider the establishment of a public inquiry to examine at those allegations.
That position will be reached when there is at least prima facie evidence to indicate that some collusion took place in the 1980s and 1990s. The SDLP’s present position is that, in the absence of tangible evidence of collusion between the gardaí and the Provisional IRA, it is premature to call for a public inquiry. We are therefore not in a position to recommend one.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Mr Alban Maginness: We have brought forward this reasoned amendment, which does not rule out an inquiry in the future. It does say that we should wait for the gardaí’s report and the result of the reinvestigation before calling for a full public inquiry.

Ms Jane Morrice: Before we move on, I remind Members of Standing Order 68, which refers to matters that are sub judice, and in particular paragraph 68(6). I will rule out of order any reference to specific incidents or individuals. The category of incidents that Mr Maginness gave is acceptable. I will judge each point as it arises.
Having considered the number of Members wishing to speak, I ask Members to restrict their remarks to no more than five minutes each.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I congratulate Mr Kennedy for tabling this motion. It is right and proper that he call on the Secretary of State to insist that the Irish Government conduct an independent public inquiry into the murder of individuals and into the allegations of collusion between the Garda Síochána and the Provisional IRA.
If we want to have justice issues in the Province and across the world addressed, someone has to drive the matter forward. All that MrKennedy’s motion asks is that the Secretary of State take up the reins and press the Irish Government. That is perfectly right and proper.
What is appalling is the woeful statement from the SDLP to the effect that its amendment is reasoned. Reasoned amendment my foot, Madam Deputy Speaker. What we heard from the SDLP today was sanctimonious claptrap. Its amendment just about notes that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. It does nothing else. The amendment does not address the issue in any proper or scrupulous way. If that is what Mr Maginness calls an intensive investigation, I should hate to see what he would call a failed investigation. The SDLP has today washed its hands of the human rights of people who have been murdered and butchered on this island by the Provisional IRA. That is the action that the SDLP has taken.
Some time ago a journalist by the name of Kevin Myers wrote in ‘The Irish Times’, in the ‘Irishman’s Diary’ column, words that today come back to haunt the SDLP, because they are right and probing: while
"Nationalist Ireland is happy to point accusingly at complicitywith-terrorism in the RUC, it is strangely silent when it comes to confronting similar betrayal of duty in the ranks of the Garda Síochána."
I was astounded by the SDLP’s effectively moving a wrecking motion. It is sanctimonious claptrap for it to refuse to allow this motion to go forward and to attempt to wash its hands of it, taking inaction as opposed to action.
TobyHarnden has been mentioned, and I mentioned KevinMyers, who wrote at length about well-placed moles within the Garda Síochána. He indicated that one individual betrayed sensitive security details to the IRA for 12years so that it could murder members of the RUC, judges and families travelling to Northern Ireland.
I understand your ruling, MadamDeputySpeaker, and I will try to stick scrupulously to it.
The details of the mole are well documented. Essentially, he has acted with impunity since 1985. In May1985 four officers were killed, one of whom was a 21-year-old woman named TracyDoak. The extraordinary thing about this murder was that the Garda Síochána alone could have known about the movements of the RUC vehicle that day. Subsequently, there was no investigation or internal inquiry — there was nothing but public procrastination by the Garda Síochána.

Ms Jane Morrice: I warn the Member that he must be take great care to avoid prejudicing the outcome of any proceedings that might take place. He is sailing very close to the wind on this issue.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The likelihood of any investigation taking place is a joke, but I understand your ruling.
The issue is this: for years this mole betrayed material to the IRA. There were 12 specific cases — the Doak case was one; the Justice Gibson case was another.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. I have ruled that mention of specific cases will be out of order. You are out of order in mentioning these cases.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Twelve cases — involving judges, families, a seven-year-old boy and a number of others — have been brought to the attention of the Irish judiciary and the Irish authorities. Their inaction and their engagement in cover-up instead of correction is a national scandal that has not been addressed. Today the SDLP is backing that failure to address these matters.

Ms Jane Morrice: Please draw your remarks to a close.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: It is a joke for the SDLP to come to the House today and speak about its commitment to human rights. The SDLP’s commitment to human rights has been found desperately wanting in the House this afternoon.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat. I will make a few brief points. I do not want to detract from Mr Kennedy’s reasons for moving the motion, but I will not be supporting it because it is a very narrow one. Mr Kennedy has presented absolutely no evidence to back up his arguments, other than the kind of dubious speculation to be found in certain cheap books and magazines. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Mr Kennedy and other representatives have very serious concerns about what has happened in and around their constituencies. They have every right to raise these concerns.
My concern is that the proposed amendment is of no substance, for it does nothing but affirm that we note that an investigation is taking place. Over the years, quite a number of members of the Garda Síochána have not only been charged and convicted but served time in prison for passing on information. That is a matter of public record. My main concern about today’s motion is that it does not go nearly far enough.
There has been clear and compelling evidence over the years — and in more recent times — in relation, for example, to the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, which obviously rank as one of the greatest tragedies on this island. Compelling evidence has been produced, and it suggests that, at the very minimum, there was at that time, and subsequently, collusion between senior members of the Garda Síochána, the RUC and Loyalist paramilitaries. We raised this matter with the new Secretary of State yesterday morning.
My only real point is that I would prefer it if we were dealing with a motion which called for a full, independent, international inquiry into all these allegations of collusion on this entire island which have involved Governments from both the Irish and the British sides of the border.
This cannot and must not be allowed to escape the public’s attention. Therefore, I will not be supporting Mr Kennedy’s motion. I respect his right to move the motion, but it is far too narrow. I would be more in favour of an opportunity to debate the whole range of allegations of collusion, which has caused untold damage and has taken the lives of untold numbers of people across this island. I would like to see an inquiry into these allegations.

Mr Sean Neeson: I am sure every Member welcomes the interception by the Garda Síochána in County Cork of four suspected dissident Republicans with guns in their car. This incident highlights the continuing threat from dissident Republicans.
The motion illustrates Members’ genuine concern about incidents in the past. Collusion on the parts of the security services with terrorists, and even suspected cases of such activity, north or south of the border, is a very serious matter.
There have been many calls over the years, and in recent times, for independent and international inquiries into the events of the troubles as a whole. But it must be remembered that there have been over 3,500 fatalities during the troubles, and many more thousands have been maimed for life, including civilians, police and Army personnel and even the Garda Síochána. We must ask ourselves where we draw the line.
It is vital that every victim of the troubles be remembered. It is important that truth and justice prevail, but we must also look to the future of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. Over the years the Government of the Republic of Ireland have lectured us in Northern Ireland on the subject of police accountability. I look forward to the day when the Assembly can debate the issue of police accountability in the Republic of Ireland. For many years Northern Ireland has had the Police Authority, which has provided substantial accountability when dealing with difficult issues in very difficult circumstances. While some groups have refused to take their seats on the board of the authority, the gardaí are simply accountable to the Republic of Ireland’s Minister for Justice.
The Good Friday Agreement and the Patten Report have provided structures that will make the new police service even more accountable, particularly through the new police board. A new police ombudsman has also been appointed. The thrust of my argument is that there should be similar accountability in the Republic of Ireland. That is very pertinent to this debate. The bottom line is that if meaningful structures of accountability are in place, public inquiries, such as demanded today, would be superfluous.

Mr Patrick Roche: I congratulate Mr Kennedy and those who have already supported the motion on how they have put forward the case for a public inquiry. I find Mr Maginness’s comments absolutely reprehensible. He argued that Mr Kennedy had not been specific, when you, Madam Deputy Speaker, quite rightly ruled that the nature of the subject matter that we are discussing precludes specificity.
He also put forward — [Interruption]

Mr Alban Maginness: Will the Member give way?

Mr Patrick Roche: I will not give way.
In opposing the motion, Mr Maginess proposed such conditional requirements for investigations which, if applied to the RUC, would never result in an inquiry. At the same time, the SDLP proposed an amendment in the House of Commons to what is now the Police Act 1997. If that amendment had been incorporated into the Act, it would have given a police board, containing members of SinnFéin/IRA, virtually unlimited scope for indefinite investigations and, therefore, an indefinite witch-hunt of the RUC that stood between decent citizens in Northern Ireland and the terrorists who would be on that police board for 30 years.
Without being able to be specific on these matters, I want to go on to consider the background relationship between the political, judicial and security establishments in the Republic. That relationship, as it developed over 30 years, renders the sort of collusion Mr Kennedy wants investigated not merely probable or likely but virtually inevitable.
There are three main aspects to the relationship that developed between the Southern state and the Provisional IRA. The first is that the Provisional IRA was financed and established by the Fianna Fáil Government under Jack Lynch. There are two things of significance about the Government’s role in establishing the Provisional IRA.
First, how far did responsibility penetrate into the Cabinet? How high did it go? That was discussed in the most recent book by Justin O’Brien, ‘The Arms Trial’. The point that I think O’Brien is making in the book, though I have not had time to read it exhaustively, is that contrary to many perceptions that this activity within the Cabinet was confined to Mr Haughey, Mr Boland and Mr Blaney in conjunction with an elected Member of this Assembly who represents Sinn Féin/IRA, it was actually done with the knowledge if not the sanction of Jack Lynch, who was the Taoiseach or Prime Minister.
Secondly, why was it done? It has been well established for some considerable time — and this was very clearly stated by Conor Cruise O’Brien in his introduction to Martin Dillon’s book ‘The Dirty War’ — that there were two basic considerations in the mind of those who manoeuvred this organisation and split the IRA at that time. One of them was the concern in the Republic about agitational politics, which were a characteristic feature of the IRA of the late 1960s under the leadership of Cathal Goulding. The idea was that if they could split the IRA and finance the armament of a section of the IRA, they could return it to the old physical force tradition that it had effectively abandoned or put into abeyance in the 60s.
This was one of the most cruel and cynical operations you could think of. The plan was to finance the physical force tradition and to focus that tradition on Northern Ireland in order to lift the weight of agitational politics and the possibility of instability — a real concern to the security forces in the Republic in the late 1960s — regardless of the consequences. That was the point.
The other point is that within the judicial establishment in the Republic there was a total aversion to the extradition of terrorists for 30 years. For example, one warrant was regarded as invalid because a full stop was omitted at the end of a sentence. Margaret Thatcher is on record in her memoirs as saying that one of her reasons for signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement was to get further support on security from FitzGerald. However, she then realised that she would never get it.
I have to draw my speech to a close. Finally, I note that an enormous amount of arms was brought in and shifted around Ireland, which the security forces in the South never seem to get.

Mr David Ervine: This is quite a shock to me; I agree with much of what Mr Roche has just said. I think that he has focused his mind on what the motion should have been focused on: the political attitudes of the Republic of Ireland.
And it should have been focused not only on the political attitudes of the Republic of Ireland but also on the ambivalence of the Republic of Ireland. Anecdotally, it is very powerful to listen to IRA men talk about phone calls from Dublin asking "Did you get the sewing machines?" These phone calls were from Dublin to Derry.
There have been two instances of serious collusion involving the Government of the Republic of Ireland. And remember that every institution in the Republic of Ireland is under Government control. How could it be otherwise? The Republic’s relationship with the Catholic Church must also be considered. Mr Roche alluded to one of the reasons for collusion but did not expand on it quite as starkly as I am about to.
IRA members were socialists, and because they were socialists they were dangerous, and they wanted to do away with them. So they armed the ones who bit the altar rails, appealing on the basis of the "pogroms" in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government and the Catholic Church thought it legitimate to involve themselves, but the underlying reason was the destruction of a socialist movement.
Mr Alban Maginness says that there is not enough evidence to examine what might have happened in the Republic of Ireland. He probably has the same view about the United States — another good friend of his — which would never ever have abandoned a legally constituted and democratic Government to install the Shah of Iran. The United States would never have abandoned the perfectly legitimate Government of Salvador Allende in Chile to replace it with their own people and all the subsequent trauma and tragedy. Perhaps he is unaware that Governments are inclined to do these things. When he looks at an ordinary RUC man he immediately thinks collusion — much the same as members of Sinn Féin do. I was disappointed that Alex Maskey did not come clean, own up and tell us truth about these circumstances. Sooner or later, the truth will out.
Back to Mr Maginness. When he looks at an RUC man he sees collusion, but he cannot imagine seeing that in the nice little Republic — the decent, nice little Republic. The Republic has more faith in itself than he has. In the Republic, a Government fell because of a paedophile priest. The Government have had their nightmares with a litany of public commissions and inquiries — and we laugh at them. Unionism says "Look at them, they’re very bad people. Look what they’re up to." The people in the Republic get a bit fed up with it, but in effect what we are seeing is a nation coming of age, a nation where it is no longer sensible, rational or reasonable to sweep things under the carpet. It is an attempt to convince the world that they are the nice little people that undoubtedly Mr Maginness considers them to be. They tell some modicum of the truth, and then they build that modicum of truth into the whole truth. We have seen it played out with the brown envelope culture and land development issues. It was also to be seen in governmental and institutional attitudes in the Republic throughout the troubles. It can happen.
Mr Maginness and others need to come to terms with the fact that Unionism is perhaps saying "You know what it feels like", because kindred spirits, whether we like it or not, often help each other. Since there is one encompassing entity called "Irish Nationalism", how is it irrational for a Unionist policeman or soldier to think that it is in the best interests of his people to pass on a piece of information, whether it is legal or not? They have done it, and they have been found guilty. But the Nationalist Benches tell us that that would and could not happen in the Republic of Ireland, that there is no evidence of it. Are they not human beings, human beings unwillingly trapped in a conflagration? If it is fair and reasonable to presume that many Governments have behaved badly, why does Mr Maginness defend a Government that presumably has behaved as badly as any other?

Mr Paul Berry: As an MLA who also represents the constituency of Newry and Armagh, particularly the south Armagh area, I support the motion. We can say that our constituents have suffered a great deal at the hands of the IRA. Our constituents have often come to us saying that they felt that there was collusion between the Garda Síochána, the Irish Government and the IRA. As the Unionist representative for that area, I thought that I would take it upon myself to bring the issue to the attention of the security Minister, Mr Adam Ingram. When I raised the issue with him he replied:
"You will no doubt have seen that Mr John O’Donoghue, the Irish Minister for Justice, announced on 13 April 2000 that a senior Garda officer would be appointed to re-examine the files on terrorist incidents in the border area in the 1980s and 1990s and to specifically investigate allegations of collusion between the Gardai and the IRA."
That is an insult to the people of this country.
The SDLP has called for investigations and inquiries into the murders of some of its constituents. Would Mr Alban Maginness appreciate an RUC investigation into the Hamill case? I am not saying that that is wrong or right, but I would like Mr Maginness to answer that question. I do not believe that a senior garda officer should be investigating these allegations. These are serious allegations of collusion between the gardaí and the IRA, and I think that means that the investigator should be independent. Collusion is not neutral, and the Irish Government should appoint someone neutral and independent. I would like Mr Alban Maginness to say whether he agrees with me on that.
Mr Kennedy and others have raised many issues today, and there should be an inquiry into the allegations that have been made. The Assembly should support a call for a public inquiry into these allegations of collusion between the Garda Síochána and the IRA.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Would the Member go further and agree that any inquiry into the Garda Síochána should be international? Does he agree that it should include people from Northern Ireland of the highest standing and professionalism, for example, senior RUC officers, so that they can cast their eye over these issues and allow people here to draw their own conclusions once the reports have been completed? Does he agree that there should be an international inquiry?

Mr Paul Berry: I agree wholeheartedly with my Colleague that there should be a full international inquiry into these allegations. There have been few real calls for an investigation into the collaboration between the gardaí and the IRA during the troubles. We hear much of the investigations that Republican so-called politicians continually pursue. The unjust goings-on between the Southern Government and the security forces should be cause for an inquiry into these allegations. I support the motion.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support my Colleague Mr Maskey in saying that Mr Danny Kennedy’s motion does not go far enough. There should be an all-Ireland inquiry into the involvement of both the British and Irish Governments. It is ironic that Unionists should, at this time, make allegations of gardaí and IRA collusion when no shred of evidence has been produced to substantiate them. Ordinary gardaí have been charged and sentenced, but it has never been proven that the Garda Síochána hierarchy has ever been involved in collusion with the IRA.
However, an array of newspaper articles published in the course of recent months clearly points to collusion between the British Army, the RUC and Loyalist murder gangs. Unionists would do well to focus on these, rather than running off on flights of fancy.
From the information gathered by the Stevens inquiry, and the leaks to the media which can be sourced to former British intelligence operations, it is clear that the undercover British Army unit — the Force Research Unit, better known as FRU — infiltrated, restructured and rearmed Loyalist gangs. Working in conjunction with the RUC, it made information relating to personal details of Nationalists available to Loyalists. It directed Loyalist murder gangs to specified targets in the Nationalist community and regularly ventured into the Twenty-six Counties on surveillance operations.
We then have the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Nobody has ever been made accountable for those. These matters deserve our undivided attention and need to be properly investigated. Given the inability of Stevens’s team to protect witnesses and their lack of authority in instructing former FRU operatives to give evidence, it is clear that important inquiries cannot be left to them.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Where is the matter of the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic referred to in my Colleague’s commentary? There has been a lot about FRU and the RUC, but none of it, or very little of it, has been about the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic, in which, of course, the Garda Síochána function. Any inquiry could only take place in that jurisdiction.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Member for his remarks. I ask Mr Murphy to return to the substance of the motion.

Mr Mick Murphy: I am sticking to the substance of the motion. It is a well-known fact, and recent newspaper articles say that FRU was part and parcel of the Monaghan and Dublin bombs.
I will bring my remarks to a close. We in Sinn Féin demand that this matter be brought to a public inquiry.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. My earlier ruling suggested that I was cautioning against mention of specific incidents and individuals, and I rule that out of order. I ask you not to refer to specific incidents.

Mr Mick Murphy: Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
As my Colleague Mr Maskey said, we demand that a public inquiry should emphasise the parts played by both the British and Irish Governments in operations during the conflict in the Six Counties. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not proper that Members declare an interest when taking part in discussion if they have, or have had, association with an organisation under debate?

Mr Alban Maginness: Does the Member mean the Garda Síochána?

Ms Jane Morrice: I am not aware of any such association. Members will, of course, declare interest.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will declare an interest. I was sentenced for membership of the Irish Republican Army, and I make no apologies for it. That is my declaration of interest.
I have listened with interest, and I welcome the fact that Mr Kennedy has given us the opportunity to discuss this, but the motion could have been deepened and made more widespread in its context.
I listened with interest to Paddy Roche and to David Ervine, who were trying to give us a revisionist view of history and of what happened in 1969 and subsequently. I hold no brief for any Irish Government which, I believe, behaved in the most disreputable fashion in relation to the Nationalist community in the Six Counties over that time.
People talk about government, but let us go back to the 1960s, to the collusion there was then in the old Stormont Government, when Loyalist paramilitaries tried to depose and bring down Terence O’Neill, ChichesterClarke and the late Brian Faulkner. Let us remember that the bombs that were exploded throughout the Six County area at that time were blamed on the IRA, when the IRA was non-existent.
However, now we know, by word of mouth, or to use the words of Mr Kennedy’s motion, that there was "suspected collusion" between Members of the then Government and Loyalist paramilitaries. There is nothing new about collusion in the history of this part of Ireland or in any other part of Ireland. It was called co-operation at one time.

A Member: Get to the motion.

Mr John Kelly: I am coming to the motion.
For years, the Stormont Government and Unionist politicians asked for — pleaded for — co-operation between the security forces on both sides of the border, much to the disgust of Irish Republicans, and they got that co-operation. We were scathing of it; we condemned it; we asked that it should not happen, but it continued throughout the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. However, no Member on the Unionist side is talking about the level of co-operation — or collusion, as we might call it — between the security forces and the various branches of Government throughout that period.
They are isolating one or two incidents and turning those into — in the words of the motion —
"suspected collusion between members of the Garda Síochána and the Irish Republican Army".
The only members of the Garda Síochána whom I know about in this regard are the ones who were brought before the courts, charged and put in prison. They were not suspected but arrested and put in jail.
There is a bit of a flight of fancy in all of this. People want to revise history. However, Mr Ervine cannot just write off what happened in 1969 as being the responsibility of the Catholic Church. It would be a travesty of history to write off the Catholic Church as placating those in the Republican movement who were eating the altar rails.

Mr David Ervine: The second great conflagration was a division between the IRA and the Provisional IRA. At that point the decision was made to be anti-socialist, and the Irish Government and the Catholic Church had an involvement in the creation of the Provisional IRA.

Mr John Kelly: I was a member of the Provisional IRA, and I am still a socialist, so I do not see the relevance of that comment.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had a confession in the House today that this man has been a member of the Provisional IRA. He should be arrested and put behind bars. That carries a sentence of seven years. If he still is a member of the Provisional IRA he should be put back behind bars this afternoon.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member declared an interest at the start of his presentation.

Mr John Kelly: As I said, I am talking about the past and not about the present, and I declared my interest at the outset.
This is a serious matter, however, and the debate and the remit ought to be more widespread. It should cover all aspects of what has happened in this part and the other part of the island, perhaps not in the last 30 years, but certainly since partition.

Mr Edwin Poots: It is interesting to speak after the previous Member. The Member often speaks for Sinn Féin/IRA. They appear to have difficulty getting Members to speak. The Member from Mid Ulster seems to be the spokesman on everything and the expert on nothing.
I support this motion. It is important that the public’s attention be directed towards this matter. Many people, particularly in the Nationalist community, are living in a world where they like to believe that nothing wrong has ever been done in the Irish Republic — everything is good and above board. However, north of the border everything suddenly turns bad — for example, the police force and the Civil Service. Everything is under the terrible, corrupting influence of Protestants.
I went to a meeting once involving companies that were in competition with businesses in the Irish Republic. The businessmen said "They are better at telling lies than we are at telling the truth." With regard to this issue, the Republic of Ireland’s Government and police force are better at telling lies than the Government and the police force in Northern Ireland are at telling the truth.
Along the border, there has been case after case of Protestants being murdered. Where did the perpetrators of those murders go? They went to the Irish Republic. How did they get to the Irish Republic? They went over a free border. Apparently, the Irish Government did not have the resources to man that border. However, when the BSE crisis broke out in 1996 the Republican movement in south Armagh was really upset because it cut down on their smuggling activities. They found it more difficult to smuggle oil, livestock and whatever else it was that they smuggled. The Republic can stop truckloads of cattle, but it could not stop the truckloads of gunmen who used to murder people and then cross the border to their safe haven in the Irish Republic.
We must also re-examine the Irish Government’s position on extradition. The British Government signed the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement on the basis that there would be greater co-operation from the Irish Government on extradition. That co-operation was not forthcoming. It was farcical, and it did not act in the best interests of the community in Northern Ireland.
There was also an incident when the gardaí discovered arms in Donegal. However, instead of announcing that they had uncovered the arms, they placed them in smaller arms dumps so that they could announce a series of arms finds. They wanted the general public to think that they were more proactive in hunting down IRA terrorists than they really were.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you said at the start of the debate that Members could not name individuals. However, there are a number of cases that must be looked at. The murder of Lord Justice Gibson has to be looked at seriously, as do those of Ch Supt Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchanan.

Ms Jane Morrice: I made the ruling that, in the interests of caution, there should be no reference to specific cases. I rule the Member out of order.

Mr Edwin Poots: I was referring to specific cases, as opposed to individual gardaí who were allegedly involved. Although I have names, I was not going to go down the route of naming those people.
A senior gardaí officer has been appointed to examine some of these cases. I find that strange because when a senior member of the RUC is appointed to investigate a case, that is not good enough. In the case of Rosemary Nelson, for example, others from outside the RUC were brought in. However, that still is not good enough for the SDLP. It wants a public independent inquiry. Yet when we raise a case in the Irish Republic that concerns us, it is all right for a gardaí officer to conduct the investigation. It is not necessary to bring in outsiders, because it is satisfied with what the gardaí will report. The SDLP is being hypocritical and it has double standards on this issue, though, of course, this is not the first time.

Mr Alban Maginness: This has not been the Assembly’s finest hour, in terms of debate. In many ways Members have not addressed the substance of Mr Kennedy’s motion. I do not think that he intended the motion to be as wide-ranging as Members have made it, despite my initial criticism of his vagueness in framing it.
There has also been an element of tit for tat, particularly on the Unionist Benches, in addressing the motion and addressing the sort of arguments that I have presented, and I regret that. We have had, of course, the usual rant from Ian Paisley Jnr — we are used to that. He mistakes abuse for substantial argument in many of his contributions. However, I am not deterred by his abuse of me or of my party, for we are used to that.
I regret that we have not received the support of Sinn Féin on the amendment. Mr Maskey has told us that the amendment is of no substance. I believe that it is, because it points out to the House that an investigation is ongoing and that a report is awaited. On the basis of that report, I believe, and my party believes, that we can make a decision sometime in the future. That report should not be long in coming to fruition.
As I have said before, I hope that the report is successful in identifying people who can be prosecuted. If they can be prosecuted, that is the right way in which to deal with the matter — as it is in the Hamill, Nelson and Finucane cases. Prosecutions are more important than anything else.
With regard to Paul Berry’s point, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is investigating the Hamill case, which we welcome. It is important for that case to be investigated. There is evidence in the Hamill case that — and I do not want to put it any stronger than this, activities — were going on within —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. I have stated that Members should not mention specific cases.

Mr Alban Maginness: All I will say is this: in relation to Hamill, there are matters that require investigation, and those matters are more than mere allegations. In this instance, the Garda Síochána is investigating allegations which to date have not produced tangible evidence. And one requires tangible evidence in order to form a prima facie case for setting up a public inquiry.
The SDLP has never asked for public inquiries in cases where there has not been some prima facie evidence of something wrong that requires to be investigated further, over and above a simple police investigation.
In the South we currently have a number of inquiries that are open, transparent and thorough. It is to the credit of the Southern political system that matters that have caused great public concern should be openly and transparently investigated in the most thorough manner possible. We should be crediting, and not ridiculing, those in the South who have brought that about. That is the type of political culture that we should have here.
If there is any substance to the allegations that have been made, and if it is merited, there will be a public inquiry in the South. However, the first point that I make is that the matter should be thoroughly investigated, and if there is evidence, there should be prosecution. If the evidence is insufficient to allow a proper prosecution, a public inquiry should be conducted.
The ebb and flow of this debate has not been an edifying experience. Allegations have been cast from one side to the other. Mr John Kelly seems to be stuck in an historical time warp.

Mr David Ervine: One presumes that if a Member castigates other Members for making a bad speech, he must believe that his own contribution was wonderful.

Mr Alban Maginness: I do not believe so. This has not been my finest hour either.

Mr John Kelly: A LeasCheann Comhairle, will the Member give way?

Mr Alban Maginness: No. At least I addressed the issue and brought forth arguments. Unlike Mr Ervine, I did not indulge in some sort of attack on things that were not said. I do not mind being criticised for things that I say, but I do object to being criticised for things that I do not say.
Mr Ervine has a vivid political imagination, and he exhibited that today. He came up with some of the most fantastical suggestions that even a revisionist historian would refuse to support.

Mr John Kelly: Does the Member agree that if I am in a time warp, Mr Ervine is in an ivory tower?

Mr Alban Maginness: I think that the two Members have similar problems. They did not address the problem that was raised, quite properly, by Mr Kennedy. Rather, they indulged in historical debate, which was so threadbare that it was of no value to and destructive of good argument in the House.

Mr David Ervine: That is unbelievable.

Mr Alban Maginness: The Member is entitled to his opinion, but he emphasised to the House insubstantial points that could not be justified by any proper historical analysis. Therefore, I rightly criticise the Member.
The amendment is a reasoned one, and the House should find it acceptable to hold its judgement until the result of the gardaí investigation is available. It will provide the basis for a prosecution or a public inquiry.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, such a naming entitles a Member to a right of reply.

Ms Jane Morrice: That is the case.

Mr David Ervine: My opinions are held not only by me, and the historical — or what Mr Maginness might have described as hysterical — assertions that I am supposed to have made were also made by other Members, some of whom are members of the Republican movement. If references to the Shah of Iran and Salvador Allende constitute historical nonsense, I do not know what is not historical nonsense. The suggestion that they were committed by Governments that are perceived to be decent allows me to believe that another such Government might also behave in a similar way.
Nothing that I said was directed personally towards Mr Maginness or was historical nonsense, as he has unfortunately described it. I will check Hansard — and get it rewritten before it comes out in the morning.

Mr Danny Kennedy: In spite of what Mr Maginness said, Members have had a reasonably informed debate. I am grateful to those Members who made contributions endorsing the motion. I wish to make a number of points about them.
MrMaginness criticised the motion because there was no specific detail. I was conscious that, given the confines of this important debate, it would be unwise, and not permissible, to engage in naming individuals and referring to specific cases, so it was written in general terms. I do not share AlbanMaginness’s faith in JohnO’Donoghue, or in any Minister for Justice in the Irish Republic, who is clearly quite unwilling to authorise a fully impartial and independent review of these matters. The Irish Government clearly stand in the dock. Those who endorse their position stand in the dock with them, and it would appear that the SDLP wants to be there.
An internal inquiry is not an acceptable way to deal with these matters. MrMaginness said he did not rule out an inquiry and he left it open that at some stage, perhaps the SDLP may press for an inquiry. That is at odds with his party’s mandate as the defenders of human rights in Northern Ireland.
This party of defenders of liberty and of saints and scholars — and all manner of things — is clearly exposed today in that it does not, and cannot, accept that there was wrongdoing by members of the Garda Síochána or by senior members of the Irish Government over many years. I am grateful to IanPaisleyJnr for giving the motion his active support. He brought — [Interruption]

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This day has been disrupted continuously by mobile phones going off. I ask for a ruling that mobile phones be left outside in a pigeonhole — with the guns.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Mobile phones ought not to be in the Chamber. They ought to be taken out of service — "decommissioned" is another word for that — and we look forward to that and other matters too.
IanPaisley Jnr did bear out the point — and the representations made by Nationalists here also bear it out — that they are in denial. Nationalism and the Nationalist political viewpoint are in denial of much of what took place over the last 25 to 30years. Republicans remain silent, or at least grudgingly acknowledge their role. If there is criticism of the SDLP — and I must say this very firmly — it is that it appears to be in serious denial of the events that took place in border constituencies. It was mass murder, assisted by rogue members of the Garda Síochána, yet the SDLP will not acknowledge it.
MrMaskey tried, in some way, to introduce other elements and appeal that there had been wrongdoing for everybody, and so that would have to be investigated. It is a curious irony that any member of Sinn Féin should want an investigation, given their active participation in the murder campaign. I welcome and acknowledge Mr Neeson’s acceptance of the concerns raised by the motion, and MrRoche made a very good case that collusion was ultimately inevitable because of the actions of senior politicians. I can remember the words of JackLynch when he said that the Irish Government would not stand idly by. Those words clearly gave a mandate to individuals and members of organisations to put into effect a campaign that resulted in murder, particularly in the border area.
I must warmly commend Mr Ervine’s speech. It was a very compelling and valuable contribution, and I suggest that Nationalists and Republicans read and inwardly digest it. I am also grateful for the contribution of Mr Berry; he is aware of the issues in his Newry and Armagh constituency.
Mick Murphy’s speech was astonishing. He contradicted not just me but Alex Maskey, his party Colleague, and Hans Christian Andersen would have had difficulty with some of the arguments he brought forward.
John Kelly’s confession was even more astonishing. They say that confession is good for the soul. I was not gratified by the confession of his membership of the IRA; that was very regrettable indeed. It is a new departure in boasting, and it is unacceptable that a Member of the House should proclaim — with some pride, it appears — that he was a member of the Provisional IRA, given its contribution to society over the past 30 years. I just wonder whether the register of interests that all Members are required to complete will include that, because it was a very clear admission and was acknowledged by the Chair.

Mr John Kelly: I said, in a jocose way, that I had to declare an interest — that I had been convicted of membership of the IRA. That is a matter of public record, not of any other type of record.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hansard will show that his words indicated that he was, and is, a member of the Provisional IRA. If that is the case, the Member should reflect upon what he said to the House, and if his words are recorded inaccurately, he should withdraw them.

Ms Jane Morrice: We will look at Hansard to see exactly what was said.

Mr Pat McNamee: I was sitting quite close to the Member in question, and his words were that he was — was — a member of the Provisional IRA. I understand that Members are required to register their current interests, but that there is no requirement to register interests they had in the past.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am inclined to say that the Member for Newry and Armagh has compounded the earlier boast made by Mr John Kelly by confirming what Mr Kelly said, but no doubt Hansard will bear that out.
I share Mr Poots’s criticism of the gardaí. While they have found arms and ammunition on many occasions, they have apprehended few terrorists, and that has been a concern for many years. They were happy enough to find the stuff, but they did not want to find anybody who might have been in charge of it.
Mr Maginness, in his winding-up speech, said that it was not the Assembly’s finest hour. I share his view. It was not his finest hour. Given the confines of the debate, we could not deal with specific cases. I look forward to observing the SDLP’s continuing interest in the findings of John O’Donoghue and to seeing how active it will be in the vanguard of public appeals for an independent tribunal or review.
I want to say one thing regarding Mr Alban Maginness’s reference to the Hamill case. It was an unfortunate contribution given the legal position of that case. Alban Maginness wanted prima facie evidence. I can produce no greater evidence than the blatant murder, with the collusion of rogue garda officers, of RUC men, UDR men, RIR men, senior members of the Northern Ireland judiciary and private citizens from both the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. That seems to be enough prima facie evidence to warrant a full independent inquiry. I believe that a compelling case has been made.
Clearly the evidence is available, and it must be seen to be dealt with in an open and impartial way. We should endorse the call for a full public inquiry, an international inquiry, headed by acknowledged experts. That should be established quickly, and it should be a priority for the new Secretary of State. In framing this motion, I am glad that I did not name the Secretary of State. That would have been unfortunate, given the run of events this week. It is incumbent on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to address this issue seriously. Until this matter is fully exposed, it will never be possible to trust completely the security authorities in the Irish Republic.

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Wrongdoing by rogue garda officers should not, and must not, be covered up.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of this debate you made a ruling about sub judice matters, which set out the parameters for this debate. Are you interpreting the words "all courts" in the Standing Order as referring to courts beyond this jurisdiction, or are you saying that the sub judice rule applies to courts in the United Kingdom only? From what appears to be your interpretation of the sub judice rule, Members were not allowed to cite cases that are under discussion in another jurisdiction. By your interpretation of that Standing Order, Members were deliberately prevented from raising certain matters. Perhaps you would comment on that.

Ms Jane Morrice: I was referring to all courts in this jurisdiction.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Perhaps you could then tell us why Members were prevented from raising cases that are not before any court in this jurisdiction. The motion does not ask for them to be brought before a court in this jurisdiction; it simply seeks to have an inquiry into issues in another jurisdiction.

Ms Jane Morrice: That ruling was made in the interests of caution. At some stage those issues may be brought before a court in this jurisdiction.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely the ruling you have just given about what might happen in a court has nothing to do with any debate in this House or with any other debate in any other Parliament. This Parliament — or this Assembly, or whatever you want to call it — has only to take care with the sub judice rule when a matter might come to court in this jurisdiction, not anywhere else. For anybody to say that this House cannot discuss what happens in a court of law in France is absolute nonsense.

Ms Jane Morrice: The rule refers to this jurisdiction. However, there are certain offences — for example, in border areas — which could be brought before this jurisdiction. I will make enquiries and make a ruling later today, or tomorrow if necessary.
Question put, 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 36; Noes 46.
Ayes
Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 46; Noes 32.
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Secretary of State to make representations to the Government of the Republic of Ireland to conduct a public inquiry into suspected collusion between members of the Garda Síochána and the Irish Republican Army in the planning and execution of acts of terrorism.

Children’s Commissioner

Mrs Eileen Bell: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls upon the Executive to appoint a children’s commissioner for Northern Ireland to highlight the interests of children in all aspects of Executive policy.
I said yesterday that my party and I were delighted to hear the ministerial statement that agreed in principle to the appointment of a children’s commissioner. I hope that this debate will be looked upon as part of the consultation process that was discussed and will provide information on the need for such an appointment. It is not superfluous to have this debate today. It is necessary.
The Alliance Party, and other parties, have campaigned for this appointment for some time now — as have nearly all the organisations which deal with various children’s issues. Alliance first brought the subject up in 1988. We approved a motion at our party conference last year that urged the Assembly to make such an appointment, and we have asked numerous questions in the House on the topic, as have other parties.
Last year, after an initial meeting with several organisations that deal with children’s issues, including Save the Children, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Children Need Fathers and the Parents Advice Centre, we became involved in the establishment of an all-party Committee on children’s issues.
That Committee’s first meeting was held in early January and was attended by various Assembly Members and representatives from relevant organisations. It was a useful meeting in which we agreed to draw up a plan to lobby on the many issues concerning children that have an impact on the 10 Northern Ireland Departments. We agreed that our eventual target must be a commissioner for children. We pledged to concentrate on a number of priority issues, such as funding and promoting children’s basic rights. It was hoped that there would be a programme of essential topics for consideration when the commissioner was appointed. My Colleagues in the Assembly and I are delighted that after only one meeting, there is a good prospect that the commissioner will become a reality.
Why is it imperative to focus on children’s rights? First, it is clear that we are failing our children, at all levels, on their quality of life.
During the years of the troubles, there were major efforts to protect children and help them a lead a violence-free life, but this was at times impossible. Nevertheless, a very effective network of children’s welfare organisations developed. We can now expect these organisations to continue that commitment to ensure fair treatment for all children.
We can see the aims of the new commissioner as being: to promote the full implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995; to ensure that children’s needs are prioritised in central, regional and local government, civil society, and to improve public attitudes to children; to influence law, policy and practice, both by responding to Governmental and other proposals and actively proposing change; to promote effective co-ordination of Government for children at all levels; to promote effective use of resources for children; to provide a channel for children and to encourage Government and the public to give proper respect to children’s views; to encourage the Government to collect adequate data on the situation of children and to publish this data. The way forward must be based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.
It must be remembered that the United Kingdom has an abysmal record of compliance with UN Directives on children’s rights and has largely ignored the many European reports that have noted its shortcomings. Hence the need for an independent, non-political position. Legislation must include childproofing, and this must be done after child impact studies on all proposed legislation, so that priority is given to childhood needs by all Government Departments.
I am heartened by the Minister’s statement that Northern Ireland children deserve no less than those in other countries, including those in the rest of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland. It has been recognised throughout the civilised world that the safeguarding and upholding of children’s rights is absolutely essential to the fabric and future of any community, and we cannot lag behind.
Legislation must be clear and transparent in this respect and should allow Government as a whole the flexibility to oversee individual Departments and their performance. The commissioner must be able to respond to individual complaints and be ready and able to deal with the many varied issues that will emerge from those consultations — child poverty, child abuse, children’s health, education, housing conditions, and so on.
The new regime must include the role of an ombudsman for dealing with complaints and comments from children and young people, as well as their parents. In short, any legislation drawn up must be effective, caring and comprehensive. Children must be prime players in informing the commissioner’s work and agenda, so that our aim of joined-up government can work in their favour.
The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 represents significant legislative change, and is one of the most important pieces of children’s law in Northern Ireland. It brought together, for the first time, the law relating to the care, protection and raising of children and addressed a wide range of issues from protection from sexual and physical abuse to providing support to keep families together in particularly difficult times. The Order is primarily concerned with the welfare of children and the help that state intervention can bring. Any new legislation should be drafted to complement this Order.
Unfortunately, Westminster has been slow in taking action, but has made some lofty comments. It said that the Government agree that it is desirable to have mechanisms that will keep issues of children’s rights and safeguards clearly and firmly on the collective agenda, and that they will ensure that this important dimension continues to be emphasised in the policies of local authorities and all other agencies with responsibility for children, particularly when they are living away from home. In spite of those wonderful words, they went on to say that it would not be desirable to create a separate mechanism for children. Dare I say it again — Tony Blair and his Government are all mouth and trousers.
A Private Member’s Bill for a children’s rights commissioner has been introduced twice in Westminster, and I hope that that will be successful. The Scottish Parliament is considering a commissioner, and we are hopeful of that outcome, and similarly with the Welsh Assembly. In the Republic, the Dáil has drawn up a national strategy for children which calls for an independent commissioner and ombudsman.
Funding is important with any legislation. It is essential that the commissioner should have sufficient resources to carry out the many tasks within his or her remit. Up to now children’s services have been short-changed. Moneys were not ring-fenced and were used to fund other schemes.
The children’s fund has been mentioned, but it is hoped that specific funds will be allocated in line with the remit of the commissioner and the policies and actions that will have to be agreed. A comprehensive and relevant national agenda should be drawn up and the policies of that agenda should allow for the input of children. A formula for drawing up recommendations to the Executive should also form part of the commissioner’s responsibilities, and the development of policies and practices for children should be clearly outlined.
I appreciate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister’s statement yesterday. It was significant, and it is hoped that the consultative process will be in line with proposals outlined in their statement and not take too long. It is also hoped that the consultative process will include the all-party Committee’s comments on children’s issues, as I detailed earlier. That would be a good way to start the consultative process.
We must ensure that children and young people form part of our vision for the future government and that their rights and needs are included in all Government Departments’ programmes. I am sure that the Assembly will press and influence, as the statement said, the direction that the Executive take on this issue, and today’s debate is the first part of that exercise.
The Alliance Party has always considered that children are citizens from the moment they are born. It is hoped that the Assembly and the Executive will also hold that belief and ensure that the legislation is enacted as soon as is practically possible.

Ms Jane Morrice: Members are aware that there is an amendment in the name of Mrs Bell.
Amendment proposed: Delete all after "Assembly" and add
"welcomes the intention of the Executive to bring forward legislation and to establish an independent commissioner for children for Northern Ireland, and believes that the responsibilities of such a commissioner should include responding to individual complaints, the formulation of policy to promote the welfare of children and carrying out child impact studies on all proposed legislation." — [Mrs E Bell]

Mr Denis Haughey: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short statement, and I am also grateful to my Colleague Patricia Lewsley for allowing me to speak in her turn.
It is not out of any disrespect to Mrs Bell or other Members who have a strong commitment to children’s issues that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is not represented in the Chamber. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are out of the country visiting three countries in Europe, and that is why they are not here.
My Colleague Dermot Nesbitt and myself were not informed that this debate would go ahead. We understood that the motion would be withdrawn, and that is why we filled our diaries. We were unable to alter our commitments, and unfortunately I am unable to stay for the debate. However, I assure my Colleague Eileen Bell and other Members who have contributions to make that I will read Hansard very carefully. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has put a great deal of work into devising a children’s strategy, and that work will continue. We are committed to it.

Mr Edwin Poots: With regard to the last comments, it is unacceptable that there is no Minister present in the House to respond. There are four Ministers in that Department, and it is not good enough that none of them can give the time to respond to the issue. I ask the Business Committee to examine that.
Many debates cannot be heard in the Assembly because Ministers are not available. Ministers are accountable to the Assembly, and it should be their first port of call. All other commitments should be secondary to their work in the Assembly.

Mr Sean Neeson: I assure Mr Poots that the Alliance Party did not make any indication that it was going to withdraw the motion.

Mr Jim Wells: Does the Member agree that it is appalling that none of the four Ministers are present to respond to this debate? At least two are in the building and have not even deemed it worth their time to sit and listen to the contributions made. The hon Member for Mid Ulster, Mr Haughey, walked out as soon as he had made his point. He did not even stay to hear what you had to say.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I would like the Member, and indeed the proposer of the motion, to know that the Business Committee did have this motion on the agenda for today. At no stage was anybody informed that it was withdrawn. The First and Deputy First Ministers, in their absence, could have asked the junior Ministers to stay for this debate. It was on the Order Paper and was not withdrawn.
I think — and I assume that the Member feels the same way — that although there was an announcement by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister yesterday, it was a very limited debate. Undoubtedly, given that announcement, Members wanted to take the opportunity to put forward their views. It is extremely disappointing that the junior Minister is not here for the end of this debate. The Member might agree that that sustains the argument that we should have appointed a minister for children in the first place.

Mr Edwin Poots: I thank the Members for their contributions. I think that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. I ask the Business Committee to look at this in general, because there is a problem with all Ministers not being available to respond to the different motions coming forward on various issues. The fact that there are four Ministers in this Department, yet not one of them is available, highlights that particular issue.
We all want to give our support to the proposal and the amendment on the basis that we are supporting the weakest and most vulnerable in society. The Programme for Government identified equality issues in relation to children and to older people. Children are certainly liable to be abused. They are the weakest, in the sense that many people will not listen to them. If a child makes an accusation against an adult, people tend to believe what the adult says before they believe what the child says.
I am not going to go into cases of sexual, physical and mental abuse. We hear it all on the television and read it all in the newspapers. What we hear and what we read is only the tip of the iceberg. A lot of abuse goes on that is not reported and that nobody is charged for. Those children suffer throughout their lives. Many children are being brought up in intolerable conditions. The more we move away from the family societies that we had in the past towards situations where many couples are cohabiting, there is different parentage for the children. Young children are being brought up in homes where the father is not their father; the man of the house is not their father. There are more and more cases of abuse as time goes on because of that.
I would like the children’s commissioner to have extensive powers. This debate gives Members an opportunity to set out what they believe the role of the children’s commissioner should be. Yesterday we had a discussion, and I believe that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister actually moved to pre-empt this debate because they knew that there was a general demand across the parties for a children’s commissioner. I believe that they moved to pre-empt it and that not much thought has been given to it.
What was put forward yesterday was that there would be a study of and a report on the appointment of a children’s commissioner, and that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would be looking at that situation with a view to appointing a children’s commissioner. There was no substance as to what they themselves actually want to see. They are in listening mode, and have not actually developed anything themselves.
Now is the opportunity for Members of the Assembly to indicate what they want: what resources they want, what role and what powers the commissioner might have. I suggest that the commissioner should have an advisory role to the Ministers. He would have a pre-consultation role, both on legislation and on policies that are being devised by the different Ministers.
Such issues could include adequate play facilities; youth provision; child road safety, including traffic-calming measures, which would fall into the remit of the Regional Development Minister; school transport and safety, which is the responsibility of the Environment and Education Ministers; the amount of baggage acceptable for schoolchildren to carry, as often their health is abused by carrying so much equipment; social services, including paedophile registers and policies on child protection, fostering, adoption and children’s homes.
We need to have a voice for children and to provide them with adequate resources. We need to give the office of children’s commissioner some teeth — some power. We need a commissioner who will not be taken lightly by the Ministers and whose advice they have a duty to act on. Obviously there are financial implications for the Government of Northern Ireland, but we must investigate how we can provide resources and implement the suggested policies. I commend this amendment and this motion to the Assembly.

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the start of this debate the junior Minister — the Member for Mid Ulster, Mr Haughey — made a statement. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he had to nip out to deal with a message, and that he would return to listen to the rest of this debate. It is quite obvious that both he and Mr Nesbitt are within the precincts of this building but that neither of them has any intention of returning to the Chamber to listen to the other speeches that will be made on this very important issue. I see that as gross disrespect to Members of the House.
Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have any powers to compel the junior Ministers to come back into the Chamber and at least have the courtesy to listen to the points that are being made? I fully accept the point that they were not in a position to respond — they explained that — but at least they could come and listen, take notes and report back to the First and Deputy First Ministers.

Ms Jane Morrice: I have no powers to compel any Member to attend the Chamber. However, all the comments made by Members are on the record, including their disappointment and dismay.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Members to continue a witch-hunt against junior Minister Haughey, who explained that he thought that this motion was going to be withdrawn? As a result, no provision was made. He then said very clearly that he would listen and read very carefully everything that was said. Can they not accept that, and end this witch-hunt?

Mr Jim Wells: He is not here.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The junior Minister explained why he was unable to be here. However, it is on the record and Members are entitled to express their dismay.

Ms Sue Ramsey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Did the junior Minister speak before his Colleague Patricia Lewsley as a junior Minister or as a member of the SDLP?

Ms Jane Morrice: The junior Minister spoke as a junior Minister. It was my choice that he should speak at that time.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I am delighted that the Executive have demonstrated the high priority they place on the care and protection of young people in Northern Ireland with yesterday’s announcement about the children’s commissioner. Judging by the favourable public reaction, there is little doubt that this measure has been welcomed across the length and breadth of Northern Ireland.
I am also heartened that this announcement has been welcomed by all the main non-governmental organisations specialising in child protection in Northern Ireland. Like many of the parties here, the SDLP has been calling for a commissioner for children for some years. Northern Ireland has a population of approximately 500,000 people under the age of 18. We need to have an independent body to look after their health, education and housing.
There is an unacceptably high level of child abuse here, and the number of young people affected by mental health problems is increasing. Children are entitled to the highest level of protection that society can offer, and the appointment of a commissioner would ensure that children’s rights are given the utmost priority, by acting as a watchdog and compiling statistics specifically on issues affecting children. It is essential not only to ensure the proper protection of our young people, but to protect their human rights and promote their right to equality. The commissioner must be independent of the Government and must have a broad mandate to protect children’s interests, thus making them more visible in Government policy structures.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
Commissioners for children are common in many European countries. One is being established in the South as part of the Republic’s national children’s strategy. To establish a commissioner in Northern Ireland can only be seen as an investment in the future of our children and young people. We have the opportunity to promote cross-border co-operation on issues affecting children, such as the protection of children from paedophiles, and many of the issues surrounding child abuse. Confidence in the protection of children in —

Mr Jim Shannon: In relation to the present discussion, does the Member agree that it would be an excellent idea for the paedophile register to include people who have been convicted of paedophile activity in the North and the South of Ireland?

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I certainly agree. I hope that a commissioner in the South and a commissioner in the North could work together to help in that matter.
Confidence in the protection of children in care has been severely undermined throughout Northern Ireland, following some of the horrific crimes that have taken place here. This new commissioner for children, with the enhanced role as laid out in the legislation, will have a pivotal role in renewing that confidence for future generations of our young people. I quote the First Minister. Yesterday he said:
"The children of Northern Ireland deserve no less."
Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the state is obliged to promote the development of, and to protect, the rights of children in the community and in the family. Because of the ratification of the convention by 191 states, the scene has been set for the prioritisation and implementation of a framework of standards for the treatment of children. Children’s rights have to be built into the system to develop a human rights culture for the future, and a commissioner for children will help to ensure this.
The commissioner should also act as an ombudsman for children and an advocate for children’s rights and concerns. Children and young people are vulnerable, and there is a need for an independent agency to monitor, protect and promote their rights proactively. The commissioner should be independent, should represent children’s rights, and should have clearly defined powers and duties. The commissioner would act as a watchdog. He or she would have responsibility to act as adviser to the Government — submitting recommendations and proposals on future legislation, collecting data and producing reports. The effect would be to encourage good practice and to improve the co-ordination of children’s services, putting emphasis on the user of a public service, rather than the provider.
In short, yesterday’s announcement that Northern Ireland will have a commissioner for children marks another step in the equality and human rights agendas. However, as the Deputy First Minister, Séamus Mallon, pointed out, the establishment of a commissioner for children is not enough. More must be done to ensure that our Administration delivers for young people. That means looking at how the Government can best take into account issues affecting the young. The Administration is already equality-proofing all its policies to ensure that they promote equality for young people.
However, we must also look at the integral workings of the Executive and the Assembly to see how they can best deal with children’s issues. The forthcoming strategy for children must do this. We also need to examine how the views of children can best be obtained, and how we can commission research on children’s issues.
All these actions contribute to addressing the concerns that Government structures are failing children and to ensuring that the needs of children are met through these structures and permitting the active, responsible participation of children, giving them the opportunity to develop their full potential.

Mr Barry McElduff: On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is hard to hear the Member who is speaking when there is other speaking going on in the Chamber.

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is indeed. Thank you.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: The effect would be to integrate into the overall structure of Government child-friendly policies and cross-departmental co-ordination on issues affecting children.
Choice and involvement of children in decisions that affect them are important to promote social inclusion and also to show them that their opinions and beliefs are respected and will be taken into consideration at the planning stage of Government policy and legislation, thus giving them parity of esteem.
The initiation by the Executive of a wide-ranging consultation process on a strategy for children is a positive way to promote the issue and develop public debate. Yesterday’s announcement will give children and organisations that represent them the opportunity to present their views and make their voices heard. We have the opportunity to break new ground and establish a precedent by putting the protection of children and young people and the upholding of their rights firmly at the forefront of the political process. It deserves to be welcomed by all.
Although society will never be able to guarantee the complete and total protection of the most vulnerable children and young people in society from being targets of those intent on committing sexual and physical abuse, this legislation now provides the children of Northern Ireland with a fresh start. It also sends a clear signal to those who prey on our children that their evil ways will not be tolerated. I support the motion.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat. I am disappointed that no one is here from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take part in the debate. I do not want to get into the issues because I do not think it is deliberate, but it is the message of empty promises that they are sending to our children and us. In registering my disappointment I point out that the motion has been on the Order Paper since last week, so I think it is an oversight.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am having difficulty in hearing you. Can you project your voice?

Ms Sue Ramsey: I am concerned that whatever we are saying today, we are saying to nobody. What is the point in going through with the debate? There is no one from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to answer any questions or queries we may have. I am going to go ahead and ask questions, and I hope that, as Mr Haughey said, he will read Hansard and give us answers.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The Member should recognise that the record could show that the Minister for Regional Development is listening attentively to every word. I am sure that the Minister will take back the core of the debate to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on our behalf.

Mr Jim Wells: Pigs might fly.

Ms Sue Ramsey: I do not think it is fair to put that pressure on the Minister. It is probably the first time Sinn Féin has defended a DUP Minister.
I thank Eileen Bell and David Ford for tabling this motion. Yesterday’s announcement by the Executive on the need to establish a children’s commissioner for the North could have ended the debate. What it did was to prompt the Alliance Party to table an amendment. My party and I fully support that amendment. I was going to say that I thanked them for ensuring that children’s rights are put centre stage, but as you can see there is no one here to answer that.
The need for a children’s commissioner has been endorsed and supported by all the parties in the Assembly. Ms Lewsley pointed out the need for it well. I am not going to go over all those arguments. I place on record my thanks and appreciation. I also congratulate those organisations which have been involved and which have lobbied strongly over the last few years to ensure that the rights of children are to the fore.
During yesterday’s debate a number of questions were raised which were relevant to the role and remit of the consultation process and the commissioner. As I pointed out earlier, there is nobody here to answer them, but I hope to get answers in the post over the next couple of days.
One of the questions was about whom the Executive will consult and how quickly we can have a list of those to be consulted. Who will be in the working group? Why will the community/voluntary sector not be included in this group? That concerns me. We should be using the knowledge and expertise that has been gained by workers in this sector over the years, especially in the complex field of children and young people. We should be using that experience instead of ignoring it.
Also mentioned was the importance of the commissioner’s powers to investigate and subpoena — unlike the Deputy Speaker, who cannot subpoena Members to come here. Sinn Féin, along with all the other parties, has endorsed the need for this. We endorsed the Putting Children First project, which campaigned on a number of key issues for children. One of these was the need for a commissioner; another was the need for a junior Minister. For the record, during the negotiations that led up to the Good Friday Agreement we lobbied for a Minister dedicated to children alone.
In its first report, the Health Committee dealt with children and young people in care. We heard all sorts of stories and got statistics from everyone. There were many concerns. One of our last, and key, recommendations was for the appointment of a commissioner.
I also pointed out yesterday that there is a need to include the NIO in the remit of this working group, because juvenile justice is a reserved matter. We need to ensure that children in this system come under the remit of the children’s commissioner. We also need to point out that the children in the juvenile justice system are missing out on health services and education because they do not fall under the remit of either the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety or the Department of Education.
Yesterday I asked the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about the Executive’s children’s fund. I asked when we would get information relating to this fund and was told that they still do not know because they are still finding out exactly what to implement and how to implement it. I note that we were also informed yesterday that the office of the commissioner would cost approximately £800,000 a year. Will this money come out of the fund? If not, where will it come from?
Finally, will the Executive ensure that until the children’s commissioner is appointed, all departmental policies are child-proofed? Go raibh maith agat.

Prof Monica McWilliams: We know the answers to some questions about provision for our children, but the Executive still cannot produce answers to others. Other Members have pointed out that unfortunately we are at the top of the ladder in relation to the number of children abused in the United Kingdom. That is a terrible indictment of Northern Ireland. What we do not know is the number of children who live in poverty in Northern Ireland. If we are able to keep data on the number of children who have been abused, we should extend the word "abuse" to include not just sexual abuse but financial abuse as well. We all know that the start you get in life determines the quality and dignity in which you will live thereafter. That, of course, is one of the things that the children’s commissioner could attend to.
Also, our children still have no advocate within Government structures. We heard yesterday, and again today, that other regions of the UK, and indeed the Republic of Ireland, have moved fast and effectively to do something about this. It is still unfortunately the case that young people are being admitted to adult psychiatric wards. Although the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety announced in response to a question I asked that there would be 10 extra beds for children and young people who suffer from mental health problems, she has still not decided where those beds will be.
There is a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the specialised staff necessary for these beds, and, as they are not currently in place, it is not good enough to make an announcement and leave it at that. If there were a commissioner with oversight responsibilities, that person would be driving that policy forward. That is an abuse of young people’s rights.
I have said before that there is a 15-year-old girl in prison in Northern Ireland. That is not a good message to send around the world — the fact that there are no juvenile detention centres for young girls here. Young girls in residential care who offend are admitted to a special unit in Maghaberry prison. They are held there, mostly on their own, since the numbers are low. It is time we provided proper juvenile justice centres for girls as well as boys. I have written to Adam Ingram about this matter, and he says that he intends to provide small, independent units for girls in Rathgael in the future, based on a Scottish model, although he has not set a timescale for this.
I agree with Sue Ramsey that we need to bring the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Office and criminal and juvenile justice into any interdepartmental working group that is established. I add my voice to those concerns.
We have a devolved Administration. Before we came into this Assembly, we were asked if we would do things differently, and if we would enter into partnerships with outside groups. We were also asked whether, if task forces were established in the future, we would bring in the expertise of civic society, particularly community and children’s organisations such as the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, the Children’s Law Centre, Save the Children and the Guardians Ad Litem Agency. Who else but people in those organisations has the necessary depth of knowledge? However, we heard yesterday that they are not to be included in the interdepartmental working group. I suppose we must assume that this group will be made up of civil servants. I have no wish to disparage the expertise of civil servants, but on their own, they do not have an adequate knowledge of children in Northern Ireland. The interdepartmental working group should be expanded to include the voluntary organisations — known as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) — and community groups that work with children on the ground. Over 30 years of the troubles, they have built up a knowledge of children that is second to none.
I have said before that if it had not been for these people coming together across the sectarian divide to work on issues of commonality in relation to children, there would have been a Kosovo-like situation in Northern Ireland. They know more than most, as do the young people themselves, who should also be included on that committee. They could add a wonderful voice of difference to the decisions being taken forward. Authorship is ownership, and if they are not present from the beginning, there is no point in our asking them to implement policies on our behalf once the decision-making processes have been completed.
The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee tasked itself with an inquiry into residential and secure accommodation. I was a Member of that Committee, and we were so alarmed at what we heard that at times, we believed we were holding an inquiry into insecure accommodation and a lack of care. This is not a reflection on the staff but on the lack of resources and the levels of absconding children, who come in one door and go out the other. Indeed, staff were under such stress that they went out on strike to get their message heard. Representatives from NIPSA gave evidence to that effect, saying that they were concerned about how they would attract social workers in the future, as levels of stress and sickness were so high that people were walking away from the profession. This is the type of job that any commissioner could take forward.
Yesterday we put down a Private Member’s Bill on a children’s commissioner, because we were concerned that the statement made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister might never be forthcoming. I warmly welcomed the statement, but it does need legislative teeth.
For the purposes of this debate, I would like to add my voice to those of Patricia Lewsley and Eileen Bell, who have outlined some of the powers of that commissioner. These powers should go further. However, I do not like to talk in terms of naming and shaming, but sometimes action is taken only after that takes place. When someone fails to comply with a recommendation, the commissioner should be required to respond to the Assembly and state which Department was the guilty party. The Assembly would then respond accordingly.
That commissioner should establish a register of compliance notices and have the power to require a person to whom a recommendation is directed to furnish any information needed to do the job more effectively.
We also asked about investigative powers. There have been many debates about the powers of the Police Ombudsman. Often the question is asked "Are her powers sufficient to enable her to carry out a good investigation?" If we are to establish a children’s commissioner, that person should have no less powers. The power of investigation should extend beyond the production of relevant documents. It should enable the commissioner to subpoena individuals to give evidence and to prepare and publish a report on any investigation required to be carried out.
The Welsh experience tells us — indeed, the very title of the report ‘Lost in Care’ suggests it — that had a commissioner been in place, with such powers of investigation, the recommendations might not have been so damning of the system. Likewise the Republic of Ireland — and Members have already commented on the excellent national children’s strategy entitled ‘Our Children, Their Lives’ — has also published recommendations that require a formal investigation to be carried out by a director or a commissioner for children.
A further power should be a children’s impact statement, in line with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, about which we hear so much. When we audit or carry out an "MOT" on particular policies that we are asked to equality proof, too often we do not think about children. If a separate children’s impact statement were required, that would task minds to think in future "If I were to carry out this policy in future, what impact would it have on children in the community?" The Minister for Regional Development might give thought to what a children’s impact statement might look like in his own Department. Indeed, Mr Poots, from the same party, actually addressed that issue with regard to road safety and planning.
In many communities we did not think about the necessary infrastructure for children, such as play facilities. I attended a residents’ association meeting last night in Belvoir estate. Two primary schoolchildren and two children from Newtownbreda High were in attendance, and they added a wonderful voice of difference to the meeting. They pointed out to us — the adults— that they had no outdoor play provision in a large public housing estate of 2,500 families. The estate was not built with children and young people in mind. This has often been said about the housing estates in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland. A children’s impact statement on any future planning proposals would be an extremely important proposal and power of the commissioner.
The commissioner should also have the power — and this has come to my attention as I have attended a number of court cases recently — to appoint someone to be the child’s representative in a legal context. We have the Guardian Ad Litem Agency, but unfortunately it does not have the legal power to represent children in their own right. Either we amend our civil and family law to allow legal children’s representatives to be the voice of the child in the court, or we give that power to the children’s commissioner. In the absence of that, our children are losing out. The legal context is very difficult for them to understand, and they do not have someone there speaking solely for them. The Guardian Ad Litem Agency would be the first to point out that that is not its responsibility, although it has a care and a duty to ensure that the children’s concerns are prioritised. The legal responsibility for a child’s representative is not empowered in Northern Ireland currently.
Finally, an extra power that also should be in place is that the commissioner should be able to make representations at inquiries being carried out by Ministers or public bodies.
The Norwegian ombudsman addressed Assembly Members in the Long Gallery. He told us that, from time to time, he is called to address the Norwegian Parliament on children’s issues, and to point out where legal responsibilities are falling down or where new policies need to be developed. I would be concerned if Mr Poots’s recommendation, that this commissioner should simply have advisory responsibilities, was to stop short of that; that "advisory" was simply to be regarded as a type of therapeutic or consultative role. If this commissioner is to take on board the serious responsibilities of being the voice of our children, he needs to have much more extensive powers than that.
I thank Mrs Bell for putting forward the motion and for amending it in light of yesterday’s announcement. I hope it will not be too long before legislation comes before the Assembly to put the commissioner into place.

Mr David Ford: Although the debate has not attracted the attention of many Members — especially those from the Ulster Unionist Party — it has been timely and worthwhile. As regards the way the debate has been structured, we certainly endeavoured, through our amendment, to address the gaps we perceived in yesterday’s statement by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
Mr Poots said that we were in the situation where Ministers were listening rather than giving a detailed format for the consultation. Those who have taken the opportunity to speak feel it is appropriate to put some flesh on the bones of that consultation.
First, I must refer to the issue of the lack of attendance by any Minister. Almost everybody who has spoken has commented on that, varying from the mildly expressed disappointment from Ms Ramsey to the slightly more active participation by Mr Poots and Mr Wells.
I want to put a very simple statement on the record of the House. At no time did Mrs Eileen Bell or I ever give any indication to any person that we proposed to withdraw the motion. Of course, there are more than four Ministers with responsibilities in this area, although it would be for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to co-ordinate any Minister’s response. However, at no time did any Minister — or any person representing any Minister — approach us about withdrawing the motion.
Although I appreciate that some Members have felt the need to temper their remarks by defending Ministers, the reality is that if Ministers wanted to know what was going on, we have not been far from this Building in the last two days. It would appear that Ministers are incapable of consulting. I trust that they are slightly better at reading Hansard than they are at attending the Chamber. They seem to be learning some of the lessons of Westminster, where senior Ministers rarely attend the Chamber. I trust that our Ministers will not be importing that bad habit. It is something we have to deal with and I hope that Ministers will have a little more courtesy and will pay a little more attention to such matters in the future.
I am sure Members will not want me to rehash everything that was said. However, I want to refer briefly to some of the main themes as I saw them. We have been looking at a variety of the problems that children experience in their everyday lives. The issue of child protection tended to flow through almost everyone’s contribution.
Mr Poots gave us a useful contribution — although I noticed that the Minister for Regional Development did not take the opportunity to talk about traffic calming. Mr Poots’s contribution certainly outlined the fact that if we are looking for a commissioner for children, it would not just be for abused or deprived children. It is about having a commissioner who will look at the totality of children’s lives.
Juvenile justice has also been highlighted. There is a major issue as to how the Northern Ireland Office relates to that. Perhaps the Secretary of State should read Hansard as well. Perhaps the First Minister will give him a copy.
Ms McWilliams talked about things such as poverty and child psychiatry services, which we are drastically lacking compared with other parts of the UK.
Ms Lewsley talked about yesterday’s announcement demonstrating that we were making the needs of children the highest priority. She is right — if that statement, this debate and the consultation lead to early legislation. At the moment, I remain to be convinced that it is a high priority and not just an attempt to bring the matter into the debate yesterday because we had this motion down for today. That would be particularly ironic, because we did not push for a debate last week. It was delayed because Ministers were not present.
Several of the issues that have been highlighted go beyond the simple issue of the children’s commissioner. Those issues must be examined. Ms SueRamsey raised the issue of the role of non-governmental organisations in the consultation process. I think that it was Mr Poots who made the suggestion that the children themselves should be consulted. The appointment of a minister for children was suggested; that is a matter for the Executive. Perhaps we should have an Assembly committee for children. We should return to all those issues after the consultation period. Another issue highlighted was the role of the guardian ad litem, which already exists in the legal system.
Such matters need to be addressed seriously, but there was no evidence from yesterday’s statement that that was being considered. We need to examine the need for powers of investigation, subpoena and reporting — "naming and shaming", as Ms McWilliams put it. The amendment would address three points that have not been covered. Other Members have highlighted the issues that they feel have been missed.
We should examine the question of the complaints procedure. I detected a suggestion in yesterday’s statement that decisions on complaints procedures would draw on the Welsh experience and the Waterhouse Report, which was concerned with the abuse of children in care. We must be sure that any procedure for investigating individual complaints goes wider than just the justice or care system.
Advising and assisting Ministers in the formulation of policy should be an essential role for the commissioner, perhaps in a role similar to that of the Civic Forum. The commissioner’s independent role would make consultation with children and with children’s organisations much easier.
One or two Members referred specifically to child impact studies. We have grown used to the idea that equality and human rights are contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We have adopted ideas such as rural proofing, but unless we start to address the needs of our most vulnerable children in every aspect of legislation — not merely when someone remembers about them — we will not be able properly to address children’s needs.
A remark was made yesterday about not wanting to rush the process. That gave me some slight cause for concern. We do not want to rush the process, and we should make time available to get things right. However, the message from our debate must be that we want to get it right as quickly as possible. The fact that there was so little detail in yesterday’s statement, compared with today’s debate, justifies the tabling of the motion and the amendment and the contribution of every Member who spoke. I trust that the motion, as amended, will be supported unanimously.

Dr Ian Adamson: Will the Member take a point of information?

Mr Donovan McClelland: As the Member has sat down, it is too late.
Question, 
Main question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly welcomes the intention of the Executive to bring forward legislation and to establish an independent commissioner for children for Northern Ireland, and believes that the responsibilities of such a commissioner should include responding to individual complaints, the formulation of policy to promote the welfare of children and carrying out child impact studies on all proposed legislation.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker]

Traffic Congestion (Ballynahinch)

Mr Jim Wells: The A24 is one of the main arterial routes through the South Down constituency and passes through Ballynahinch. The majority of those using the road are commuting to and from towns such as Kilkeel, Newcastle, Dundrum and Castlewellan. It is also an important route for those travelling between Lisburn and Downpatrick. The majority of people using the route are not actually going to Ballynahinch. They have to go through the town, and, frankly, they wish that they did not.
The most recent statistics available, which were collected in September1998, show that 15,000 to 16,500 vehicles pass through Ballynahinch each day.
The only alternative route for people who want to commute from South Down to the Greater Belfast area is to travel via Clough from the south or Crossgar from the north along the A7 through Downpatrick. The problem is that that brings them through the second great bottleneck for traffic congestion in South Down — Downpatrick. As far as the people of South Down are concerned, there really is no alternative to travelling through the bottleneck on the A7.
It is no exaggeration to say that the economic development of a large part of South Down is being severely hampered by congestion in Ballynahinch. Undoubtedly, the situation is going to get much worse. The Ards and Down area plan projects that an additional 7,500 houses will be built in the Down District Council area over the next 15 years. Many of these houses will be built in towns such as Ballynahinch, Newcastle and Castlewellan, which will generate more traffic through Ballynahinch. Even before the plan was published in draft form, planning permissions were granted for the village of Dundrum that will double the number of houses in that small village over the next 10 years. The Department has indicated that it expects traffic growth in Northern Ireland of between 2% and 3% per annum, so even if there were to be no further development, that would have an impact on South Down.
Finally, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is putting tremendous effort into improving tourism throughout Northern Ireland. Newcastle and the South Down coast are important tourist spots and, as tourism grows, it will inevitably lead to further traffic congestion in Ballynahinch. Some of the worst examples of traffic congestion in Ballynahinch can be seen on summer weekends when many people try to make their way through the town to go to their caravans or to the seaside for leisure activities. In peak hours the town is extremely congested.
I appreciate the fact that the Minister will be sitting through this entire debate, given that he has already sat through the last one. He has obviously come briefed to answer the questions I will be raising, unlike other Ministers who would rather have their tea than come to listen to subjects being discussed that are relevant to their Departments. The Minister has also written to me promising that he will visit Ballynahinch, and I know that all the district councillors there will be very keen to meet him and point out the problems that congestion is causing for the town.
During the morning rush hour in Ballynahinch it is not unusual for traffic to be queued right back to the junction with the road to Downpatrick, the B2. If the Minister were to visit Ballynahinch between 5.30 pm and 5.45 pm, he would find the traffic tailed back to Carlisle’s garage, or it may even tail back to the junction with the Saintfield Road, the A21. Unless hon Members have had experience of sitting in such queues, it is very difficult for them to understand how frustrating it is for people who are trying to get home.
This is having a dramatic impact on trade in Ballynahinch because many shoppers refuse to go there; because of the delays, they go elsewhere. It is simply not worthwhile sitting in a queue of traffic waiting to get through the town to go shopping. That has a knock-on effect on the town of Newcastle. Many people are dissuaded from going there because they know that no matter what way they travel, they are going to face a traffic bottleneck.
For the people who live in Ballynahinch — fortunately, people still live in the centre of the town — the environmental impacts are significant. In addition to the obvious noise and congestion, exhaust fumes cause pollution. The environmental impact of the large number of vehicles travelling through the town makes life unpleasant for the residents.
The Minister is aware that there is a simple and obvious solution to this problem, and it is summed up by one word — "bypass". A bypass should be built to take traffic around Ballynahinch. A bypass from the junctions of the Castlewellan Road and Downpatrick Road with the main Newcastle Road, sweeping around the town to come on via the Crossgar Road to the Belfast Road, would eliminate a huge proportion of the congestion in Ballynahinch.
Unlike other congested areas in Northern Ireland, in Ballynahinch the land for a bypass is available. There is no problem with land acquisition. Not only is the land available, but there would be almost unanimous support for a bypass among the Ballynahinch community. It would not be another Twyford Down situation where people would be chaining themselves to the bulldozers or camping out in trees. The people of Ballynahinch want a bypass and would give the Minister full support when he came to cut the ribbon.
The projected cost of a bypass is in the region of £5 to £6 million. That is not a lot of money compared with other major schemes. That amount is quite small in relation to the overall budget at the disposal of the Minister for Regional Development. It is vital that the bypass be included in the major works preparation pool. There is a list of schemes that, subject to funding — and the Minister is always quick to add that caveat — will go ahead. It is unfortunate that the Ballynahinch bypass does not feature in that programme. Will the Minister explain why the bypass has not been included?
I also ask the Minister — wearing another of his hats — to ensure that when the development plan for Ards and Down goes to the draft stage, the land for the Ballynahinch bypass is clearly zoned and marked on the appropriate map so that there is no doubt as to where it could go. There is a lot of land available but it is important that the route is defined on the map in the area plan. It is also important that that is put into the area plan as a policy so that it becomes imperative upon the Department to ensure that it goes ahead.
I am concerned that when the area plan team recently consulted with the residents of Ballynahinch and Downpatrick they used phrases like "The plan will offer the people of Down district an opportunity to explore solutions to traffic congestion problems in Ballynahinch." The residents of Down district do not want an opportunity to explore congestion; they want the congestion relieved. They want a bypass to take away the enormous problems that the town is facing.

Mr Edwin Poots: Does my hon Friend accept that that does not only affect the residents of the Down District Council area? I represent the neighbouring constituency of Lagan Valley, and many people from my constituency travel through Ballynahinch to reach the services that are available in the Down district, particularly in Downpatrick where there is a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency office, an agriculture office and a planning office. The congestion problems are not solely the bailiwick of people who live in the Down district but also of the people who travel from the Lagan Valley constituency.
Given his comments on the development that is due to take place in the Down area, would the Member consider private finance for that scheme? There may be an opportunity to have builders and developers donate money to get the road scheme off the ground.

Mr Jim Wells: I thank the hon Member for his intervention. He is correct. The snarl-up of traffic that exists in Ballynahinch not only affects the Down district, but also those who are travelling to and from Downpatrick or Lisburn. Anyone coming from Lisburn who wants to go to the southern part of County Down is more or less bound to use Ballynahinch.
I am keen to retain services in Downpatrick, and I have asked the Minister a written question about his proposal to remove the street lighting section’s design and consultancy service from Downpatrick. I am keen to ensure that services are not centralised away from Downpatrick to the Greater Belfast area. However, that is a difficult argument to sustain when people say that they would love to establish in South Down but the snarl-up of traffic is a major problem. That is off-putting to employees and potential investors. I think that we have to crack this particular problem.
The third request I make of the Minister is that we gather accurate statistics on the number of vehicles using Ballynahinch town centre. I have quoted statistics collected in September 1998 and there is a great deal of variation between what is claimed by councillors who represent Ballynahinch and by the Department. I have quoted the more conservative figures, but others maintain that the figures are much higher. I understand that the Department has recently gathered more statistics and I made efforts to try to obtain those today, but for some mysterious reason — and I am not suggesting for one moment that anything underhand is going on — those statistics were not available for the debate. I am sure that the Minister will make them available to other Members and myself through a written question that I have tabled to him on this important subject.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has shown an interest in this matter and we are making preparations for his visit to Ballynahinch to see the problem at first hand. He will be met by a very strong cross-community delegation of people with all shades of opinions, who are awaiting his visit with bated breath.
One of the difficulties with Ballynahinch is that unless you live in the area and have to travel to South Down and back on a regular basis, you will not be aware of the problem. However, once you have experienced it, and once you have had the privilege of waiting for 40 minutes to get through the town on a wet winter’s night, you will know just how great a difficulty this is. I am saying to the Minister that £5 million or £6 million will not put a huge hole in his capital programme, but it will do an awful lot to make life much better for the people of South Down.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: The plight of the people of Ballynahinch is very real every day. It is so obvious that even a passing motorist would see it — and, as Mr Wells has outlined, a passing motorist would have plenty of time to see it because he would be sitting there for many minutes.
The people of Ballynahinch face that ordeal daily — the ordeal of serious traffic congestion, which creates great disruption to their lives. There is constant and increasing pressure from heavy vehicles — some huge transporters — on what is, essentially, a fine old market town with many good historic buildings, and I would like to return to that particular aspect a little bit later.
Consequently, I am very disappointed that again there is no provision for a ring road for Ballynahinch, or indeed any scheme earmarked for South Down, in the Department for Regional Development’s recently published preparation pool for planning. We have lobbied long and hard for road improvements, and the Minister has replied to several of my queries on this issue.
I am not sure whether the historical background to the situation in South Down, and in Down district in particular, is fully appreciated. Members might be interested to know that the old Down County Council had a very parsimonious attitude to road development. Consequently, they would only enter into schemes they had the money for, whereas other county councils would borrow money and keep the schemes going. The result was that Down, as a county, had difficulty catching up with modern road improvements.
All those points about the development of roads in our district were put together by Down District Council in a thorough presentation that has been with the Department for some time. The council’s report should be examined again, and we should consider the effects of the road infrastructure deficit. The Minister recently agreed to receive a cross-party delegation from Down Council on the issue. I hope that sympathetic consideration will be given to our plight.
Today we are talking particularly about the bypass at Ballynahinch. I thank MrWells for bringing the matter before us. It is obvious that he has learned much about the difficulties that we face in the Ballynahinch area. The bypass is an absolute necessity. The present situation poses a serious threat to the social and economic future of our area. It is not just a bottleneck: it is a noose around the economic neck of the district south of Ballynahinch.
The problem is all the more significant because of the effort and resources that have been put into promoting tourism in the area south of Ballynahinch, particularly the greater Newcastle area. We have a ridiculous situation in which one arm of Government is trying to encourage economic development through tourism, while another arm constricts that development with an inefficient road system. The most important thing in tourism marketing is giving customers easy access to attractions. If families are forced to sit in the car on a hot summer’s day, while the traffic moves slowly through Ballynahinch, they will hardly be encouraged to return.
Statistics show that Newcastle and its hinterland depend not just on EdwinPoots’s people coming on official business — I agree with him that there are many such people — but on day trippers who come from Lisburn, as well as Belfast, into the area. The situation must be experienced if it is to be appreciated; I think that JimWells made the same point. The problem is there any day during peak times, but during the summer the amount of Sunday traffic in Ballynahinch is unbelievable. There are tailbacks of many miles in the morning and the evening. We talk about joined-up government, but we need to get our act together and make sure that investment in tourism is matched by investment in the roads.
I mentioned my concern about the effect on the busy historic market town of Ballynahinch. A recent survey revealed that 15,800 vehicles travelled through the town in one 24-hour period. The Minister provided me with that information some time ago. If one compares the daily traffic figures for Toome, these are not that far away. I do not wish to mention that in particular, knowing your interest there, Mr Deputy Speaker — but why not? And yet, by general acclaim, there is a necessity for a ring road there. Why are we not getting the attention that we need in the Ballynahinch area?
I recognise the attempts by the Department for Regional Development to help the situation. Some of those have been imaginative. Everybody would agree that the most recent — the one-way system — has helped traffic circulation and the general traffic flow. It has not cured the problem, and it has created problems of pedestrian access and road crossing — but it has improved the overall situation. However, it does nothing to address the noise and air pollution mentioned by Jim Wells. That inevitably results in a deterioration in the quality of life.
The stability of the old buildings is another issue, and I do not exaggerate when I draw attention to that. From experience, Members will know that road hauliers are using larger and larger trucks to transport their goods. When these large vehicles come thundering through the narrow streets of Ballynahinch, the effect on old buildings is bound to be serious. I make this point in connection with the excellent work done by the Ballynahinch Regeneration Company in its attempt to restore the quality and fabric of the town centre. We should all pay tribute to those people who give up so much of their time to try to improve things. Battling against the odds, they have been very successful. If it is for no other reason than to assist and encourage the efforts of such a group, we should be able to persuade the Minister and his Department to do something to help with this roads problem.
It is unfair to ask this one town to bear the brunt of this whole heavy demand. I believe — as does Down District Council, unanimously — that the only real solution is to direct traffic away from Ballynahinch by way of a ring road.
I urge the Minister, in the light of our plea today, to re-examine his decision not to include this scheme in the forthcoming work preparations pool.
With regard to the excellent point made by Jim Wells, the land is available for this, and it is estimated to be at a reasonable cost. It is also clearly outlined on a map in the possession of both the planners and the Department for Regional Development. It has been earmarked as a possible route. There is therefore nothing to prevent this project from going ahead except two very important things— the will and the finance.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support Jim Wells in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is a timely debate. I congratulate the Minister for attending this evening to listen to three people speaking on the subject. I appreciate his coming, and I hope that other Ministers will take a leaf out of his book.
The traffic flow scheme currently in place in Ballynahinch is incapable of coping with the level of traffic going through the town, and it causes the greatest inconvenience. The town is further brought to a halt, and is chaotic, each Thursday when the market-day traffic arrives.
My concern is that this not only hampers business, but is a serious risk to people’s safety. With a population of approximately 6,500, Ballynahinch is entitled to an adequate traffic flow scheme to ease the current congestion and put an end to serious disruption. The problem is detracting from the positive appeal of the town, as people do not want to come to Ballynahinch to sit in traffic jams.
I am sorry to hear that Ballynahinch is not in the Department’s plan for improvement, and I hope that the Minister will give the matter further consideration. A range of options are open, the simplest of which is to create more parking spaces. That would help the flow of traffic. However, that is only a short-term policy. A more thorough proposal would be to provide a bypass, as mentioned by Mr Wells and Mr ONeill. That would increase the number of vehicles and provide better access to the business community.
I propose that in looking at this plan the Minister should consider the reinstatement of the rail link from Belfast to Newcastle. That would be an alternative to a bypass and would be a great help to the town of Ballynahinch. It would also relieve the traffic congestion on the Saintfield Road to and from Belfast in the early mornings and evenings.
What about the tourist traffic into Newcastle in the summer months? I am sure that each and every one of us has experienced at some time or another sitting for perhaps an hour or two hours in the traffic into Newcastle. That includes people coming to and from their business. It has to be experienced for one to fully realise the problem.
My proposal for reinstating the rail link would not only ease that traffic problem but also be of benefit to the businesses of Ballynahinch and Newcastle, help the flow of tourism and also help the environment.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am happy to respond to and deal with the issues raised.
Ballynahinch is a town on the highway network formed by the intersection of the A24, which runs north/south between Belfast and South Down, and other routes which traverse County Down in an east/west direction, for example, Lisburn to Downpatrick. Ballynahinch is a market town that serves a large rural hinterland and, like many others in Northern Ireland, has grown in size and population in recent years.
The traffic moving into and through the town has also increased significantly. It is generally acknowledged that at certain times of the day and week, drivers have experienced delays in approaching and travelling through Ballynahinch. This situation has existed for some time, with traffic progression frustrated by both the very large seasonal fluctuations, generated mostly by summer traffic destined for Newcastle, and the interaction of through and local traffic. It is further exacerbated by the presence of a number of secondary schools and on-street car parking.
In recognition of the traffic management problems in Ballynahinch, in 1996 Roads Service developed a strategy of short-, medium- and long-term objectives to improve traffic conditions in Ballynahinch. A review of waiting restrictions in the town centre was undertaken and modifications introduced to overcome localised problems caused primarily by on-street parking. A feasibility study of a one-way system around the town centre to improve traffic progression was assessed and the local community received the proposal favourably.
Following completion of the necessary statutory procedures and construction work, the one-way traffic system was introduced in the town centre in March 2000. I understand that this scheme has been reasonably successful in improving traffic progression and reducing queue lengths. I acknowledge Mr ONeill’s comments in that respect. I hope that everyone who is local to the area agrees that congestion has at least been reduced by the introduction of the one-way system.
Statutory procedures are currently ongoing for the introduction of noise pollution measures to eligible residential properties along the line of the one-way system. Concerns have been expressed about the speed of traffic using the one-way system and the implications for road safety. Of course, that would be when there are not massive tailbacks on the road. However, the accident records available for Ballynahinch indicate that in the three months prior to the introduction of the one-way system, three traffic accidents resulting in personal injury occurred, while in the six months since the introduction of the system, there has been one such accident. It is acknowledged that at off-peak times, the one-way system does increase opportunities for speeding.
It is the opinion of Roads Service that the one-way system offers traffic management benefits in the medium term, but that ultimately these will be reduced by the continuing growth in traffic volumes. The long-term aim for traffic management in Ballynahinch is for the construction of a bypass to remove through traffic from the town centre. As Members will be aware, Roads Service has, for a number of years, considered the provision of a bypass for Ballynahinch. At this stage, a detailed design of the proposal has not been undertaken, but an indicative route to the eastern side of the town has been identified. As has been said, the proposal for the bypass was contained in the Roads Service six-to-15-year major works programme while that was the policy of Roads Service.
Since the introduction of the major works preparation pool in July last year, there is an intention to consider schemes for inclusion in what is considered as the forward planning schedule for major road schemes.
At this point I wish to refer to the remarks made by each of those who have spoken regarding the Ballynahinch bypass and its position, or lack of it, in respect of its being considered by Roads Service. As I said, the forward planning schedule is being considered, and the Ballynahinch bypass will be seriously considered for inclusion in that schedule.
Although traffic volume is not the only criterion for consideration, or justification for such a bypass, the volume of traffic currently travelling through Ballynahinch is estimated to be approximately 15,000 vehicles a day, and the Roads Service has assessed that approximately 10,000 of those would use the bypass. That is the passing-through traffic, which is travelling north/south.
I would like to refer to the figures that Mr Wells mentioned. There appears to have been confusion in some of the local press in the South Down area regarding the figures. Obviously, I cannot be responsible for those who take figures that are given to them and then put a construction upon them. The figure that was supplied to Mr ONeill is the figure that Roads Service currently has available to it, namely 15,000 vehicles a day. Some of the South Down newspapers mentioned a figure as high as 30,000 vehicles. It would appear, however, that there were a number of roads for which a series of numbers of vehicles a day was given, and that — and I could not possibly accuse someone of using journalistic licence — someone has added the total users of various roads together and assumed that 15,000 on one road and 15,000 on another may have meant that 30,000 vehicles were going to be using the bypass.

Mr Jim Wells: I accept the hon Member’s point. Does he accept that the figures I quoted of between 14,900 and 16,400 are similar to what he is suggesting? Mr ONeill’s recent figure is also in the same ballpark. That being the case, traffic going through Ballynahinch town centre is on a par with other areas in the preparation pool. People in South Down want to know why Ballynahinch is outside the preparation pool when other similar — or less deserving — cases are being included.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for his comment. I referred to the numbers not because Mr Wells or any other Member had mentioned the higher figure, but a glance at local newspaper coverage of the Ballynahinch bypass issue indicated that the figures have been misunderstood. Mr Wells’s and Mr ONeill’s figures, and those mentioned in the House, are accurate, broadly speaking. The number of vehicles is approximately 15,000 per day. Mr Wells and the other Members are correct in saying that Ballynahinch ought to be considered.
I repeat what I said earlier: the forward planning schedule for major road schemes is currently being considered and the Ballynahinch bypass will be considered seriously. The schedule has not been prepared yet and the bypass has not been excluded from it. Until we see the final schedule, no road is automatically included. When the final schedule is available it will be clear which schemes are in and which are not.
When a scheme such as the Ballynahinch bypass is considered, it — like all other schemes — is measured against five criteria as outlined in the ‘Moving Forward’ transport policy statement. These are integration, safety, economy, environment and accessibility. On that basis, a cost-benefit analysis will be carried out. The South Down representatives will say that Ballynahinch scores highly on each of these criteria. My problem as Minister for Regional Development is that almost every other scheme for which there are campaigns will also score highly. That is a problem I will have to consider.
There will also need to be consideration of the scheme in the context of new Down and Ards area plans which are currently being developed.
The standard of design that the Roads Service would consider appropriate would be for a single carriageway construction approximately 3·5 km in length. At the moment, building costs for that would be approximately £5·5 million. The issue of cost was raised and it was referred to as a comparatively small amount. I can understand why Members would consider £5·5 million to be a comparatively small amount. If I did not have a whole series of road schemes to build, all of which would individually cost a comparatively small amount, my task would be easier.
In introducing the one-way system last year, the Roads Service was keen to provide pedestrian facilities in the town. This was done in two particular areas when the scheme was introduced. However, due to further pedestrian demand an additional pelican crossing was provided at the leisure centre on Windmill Street on Friday 26 January 2001. A further pedestrian refuge will be provided at the Windmill Street/Harmony Road junction, close to a large new store. I hope and trust that this will be of benefit to the pedestrians in Ballynahinch and will also enhance road safety.
Of course, I am always keen to build and improve the infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Most obviously, this can be done through improvements in the road network. However, as my predecessors and I have made clear on many occasions, that has to be achieved through a finite budget. In his closing comments Mr ONeill said that the two things that were required were the will and the finance. I can assure him that the will is here and will continue to be present.

Mr Jim Wells: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am about to conclude.
As everybody in this Chamber knows, I have been awarded a roads budget — effectively for year one, and indicatively for years two and three — within which I have to try and deliver road schemes. You could argue that that has no direct impact on Ballynahinch, as it is not currently in the five-year building programme. However, the schemes currently in that programme have a higher priority than Ballynahinch. That would not change if delays were imposed on the earlier schemes. The knock-on effect would mean that there would be delays right down the line. As I have said on many occasions, to build roads I need the appropriate level of funding. I hope that Members remember that when they next have an opportunity to consider budget levels.
I understand the frustration faced by those in the Ballynahinch area and those who wish to travel through it, and I will repeat the remarks made during the debate. The will is most definitely there in respect of Ballynahinch — the finance is something that I have to negotiate and argue for. I hope and expect to receive the support of Members in endeavouring to obtain the necessary finance.
Adjourned at 7.12 pm.